• 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. May

Wharton v. State, No. 49A02-1502-CR-85, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

“Open plea” of guilty to multiple OWI charges did not waive defendant’s double-jeopardy challenge to those convictions.

Steele v. State, No. 49A02-1408-CR-585, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2015).

August 21, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Domestic-battery victim’s hearsay statement to forensic nurse examiner was admissible as statement for medical diagnosis or treatment. Sentencing order properly “merged” multiple counts, without entering conviction on them, to avoid double-jeopardy violation.

Rodgers v. State, No. 20A03-1412-CR-438, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 7, 2015).

August 14, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Court could not order defendant to participate in victim-offender reconciliation program (VORP) without his agreement.

Buford v. State, No. 20A05-1408-CR-392, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 24, 2015).

July 31, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Search warrant was invalid; uncorroborated anonymous tip of drug dealing at defendant’s home, plus police smelling burnt marijuana and seeing unspecified amount of marijuana “shake” on table in the home, did not establish probable cause of drug dealing.

Kowalskey v. State, No. 32A01-1503-CR-99, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2015).

July 31, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Defendant’s conduct did not waive his right to counsel. His oral and written requests for the trial court to compel discovery were not obstreperous, and trial court had neither adequately advised defendant of the dangers of self-representation nor made necessary findings on whether his conduct under the circumstances constituted knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 34
  • 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