• 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

McKinley v. State, No. 49A02-1502-CR-78, ___ N.E.3d ___(Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 6, 2015).

October 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Instructing the jury that defendant could be convicted under I.C. § 35-48-4-1(a)(2)(C) for “knowingly” possessing cocaine with intent to deliver was not fundamental error, although defining “intent to deliver” may have been preferable.

Quinn v. State, No. 20A03-1503-CR-82, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2015).

October 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, B. Barteau

Charges for 1988 child molestation and criminal confinement were not barred by statute of limitations; State’s discovery in 2012 of DNA evidence implicating defendant was reasonably diligent, and charges were filed within one year of that discovery.

Henderson v. State, No. 34A02-1501-CR-33, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).

October 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

There is no statutory, constitutional, or common law restriction on court’s discretion to impose consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses. However, court must conduct indigency hearing before imposing a fine.

Hale v. State, No. 35A02-1501-CR-57, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).

October 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Mathias

Denial of motion to depose codefendants, though error, was not properly preserved for appeal; when codefendants testified at trial, defendant did not seek to exclude their testimony, renew his request to depose them, or seek a continuance.

Larkin v. State, No. 46A05-1411-CR-550, ___ N.E.3d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).

October 5, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Defendant’s appeal seeking to disqualify entire county prosecutor’s office and appoint special prosecutor was dismissed as moot; newly-elected Prosecutor had not been involved with the challenged conduct, and defendant could separately pursue disqualification of particular Deputy Prosecutors who were involved.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 213
  • Go to page 214
  • Go to page 215
  • Go to page 216
  • Go to page 217
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 404
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs