• 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

State v. Stevens, No. 62A01-1406-CR-268, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

IDACS criminal-history data that defendant had out-of-state methamphetamine conviction, though inaccurate, gave probable cause to arrest him for attempted possession of a precursor; police had no duty to confirm accuracy of the data.

Kemper v. State, No. 15A01-1408-CR-340, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. June 17, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

State presented insufficient evidence that defendant conspired to commit robbery; alleged co-conspirator’s guilty plea to conspiracy could not be considered as substantive evidence against defendant, and remaining evidence was insufficient to show agreement to rob.

Ammons v. State, No. 45A03-1411-CR-394, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. June 17, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, P. Riley

Sex Offender Registration Act was not unconstitutional ex post facto punishment as applied, even though defendant’s offenses were in 1988 and SORA was not enacted until 1994; the seven Mendoza-Martinez factors, including seventh “excessiveness” element that is “accorded special weight,” balanced in favor of finding registration non-punitive.

Strozewski v. Strozewski, No. 29A02-1412-DR-885, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 16, 2015).

June 19, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Dissolution was filed in a preferred venue under Trial Rule 75(A)(8), and although preferred venue may lie in more than one county, if an action is filed in a county of preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted.

Rose v. State, No. 20A04-1409-CR-343, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 9, 2015).

June 12, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Jury service by unopposed candidate for judge of the court in which the trial was held, and who had represented victim’s mother in an unrelated matter but had no recollection of the case, was not fundamental error.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 228
  • Go to page 229
  • Go to page 230
  • Go to page 231
  • Go to page 232
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 405
  • 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