• 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

Brown v. State, No. 34A05-0812-CR-716, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2009)

June 16, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, J. Baker, J. Kirsch

Plurality agrees defendant receives no sentence credit for period he was arrested on charges unrelated to the one he pled guilty to and which were dismissed; plurality agrees defendant receives credit from time he was arrested on charge he pled guilty to.

Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville, No. 10A04-0811-CV-676, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 9, 2009)

June 16, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, T. Crone

Jeffersonville ordinance that prohibited convicted sex offenders from entering public parks was unconstitutional as applied under the prohibition on ex post facto laws in the Indiana Constitution.

State v. Boadi, No. 64A05-0807-CR-420, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 13, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Failure to stop at a red light due to inadvertence or an error in judgment, without more, does not constitute recklessness.

McMurrar v. State, No. 49A02-0809-CR-868, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Admission of drug test results on testimony of sponsoring witness, the lab’s quality assurance manager, without testimony of the lab scientist who performed the test or a showing of the latter’s unavailability, violated defendant’s confrontation rights.

Salter v. State, No. 49A02-0808-CR-672, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2005)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Downloading an image to a computer is not “creating a digitized image” under the child exploitation offense; the dissemination of matter harmful to minors offense was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant’s sending an image of his genitals to a sixteen year old with whom he could legally have consensual sexual relations.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 390
  • Go to page 391
  • Go to page 392
  • Go to page 393
  • Go to page 394
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 403
  • 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