• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Appeals

Berg v. State, No. 32A01-1504-CR-127, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Convictions for D-felony OWI (elevated from A-misdemeanor OWI with endangerment because of a prior OWI conviction) and B-misdemeanor reckless driving did not violate Richardson actual-evidence double jeopardy. “Evidentiary footprint” of the offenses was not identical because OWI, unlike reckless driving, required proof of intoxication. Nor did both convictions rely on “the very same behavior” because offense would have been elevated to a felony because of the prior conviction, regardless of whether it involved endangerment.

A.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., No. 20A03-1502-JT-61, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

The “home” that is referred to in the statute allowing for the termination of parental rights is the home of the child and not the home of a particular parent.

Carmer v. Carmer, No. 49A05-1411-DR-539, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2015).

November 2, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Mathias

The trial court erred when it failed to consider structured settlement payments in its calculation of gross income for the purposes of child support.

Criswell v. State, No. 02A03-1501-CR-22, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 13, 2015).

October 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Police officer’s statement in internal-affairs investigation was inadmissible because it was given under “Garrity notice” that it “cannot be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceedings” except perjury or obstruction of justice. Statement, and its evidentiary fruits, should therefore be suppressed.

Allen v. State, No. 49A05-1410-CR-501, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Oct. 14, 2015).

October 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, M. Barnes

Even though defendant had notified the trial court of his incarceration on other charges at a pre-trial conference, he was not entitled to discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C). All but 363 days of delay resulted from defendant’s failure to appear for trial when defense counsel failed to obtain a transport order to secure defendant’s attendance at trial as instructed, and was chargeable to defendant. Nor did the delay violate defendant’s constitutional speedy-trial rights.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 207
  • Go to page 208
  • Go to page 209
  • Go to page 210
  • Go to page 211
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 400
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs