• 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

M. Massa

State v. Zerbe, No. 49S05-1509-MI-529, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2016).

February 29, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Michigan sex offender was not distinguishable from offender in Tyson v. State, even though Michigan enacted its registration requirement two years after defendant’s offense. Relevant question was not whether Michigan registration requirement was ex post facto law, but only that the requirement existed at the time offender moved to Indiana.

Bonnell v. Cotner, No. 66503-1509-PL-530, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 16, 2016).

February 22, 2016 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Sale of the strip of land by tax deed extinguished any and all interest the party previously possessed by adverse possession.

Shane Keller v. State, No. 88S04-1506-CR-354, ___ N.E.3d ___, (Ind. Jan. 25, 2016).

February 2, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, M. Massa, Supreme

Jury instruction defining “dwelling” element of B-felony burglary was misleading and invaded the province of the jury. Burglary convictions therefore had to be reduced to Class C felonies.

Beasley v. State, No. 49S02-1601-CR-20, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Jan. 14, 2016).

January 15, 2016 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Trial court acted within its discretion under Evid. R. 804(b)(3) to admit murder victim’s hearsay statement that he shot at defendant the night before as a “statement against interest”; statement was unambiguous and had a great “tendency … to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability,” even though declarant believed he had acted in self-defense.

Tiplick v. State, No. 49S04-1505-CR-287, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., Oct. 7, 2015).

October 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, Supreme

Synthetic-drug (aka “spice”) and “look-alike drug” statutes are not unconstitutional for vagueness or delegating legislative authority to administrative agency. But synthetic-drug charging informations were insufficient, requiring dismissal without prejudice, for failing to reference the emergency administrative rule criminalizing the “XLR11” drug on which the charges were based.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 16
  • Go to page 17
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 27
  • 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