• 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

Stokes v. State, No. 43A04-0811-CR-655, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Alternate’s conversation with deliberating jurors did not require a mistrial when trial judge polled jurors and all indicated they were not influenced by alternate.

Gonzalez v. State, No. 82A01-0809-CR-406, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Gonzalez v. State (Ind. Ct. App., May, J.)-When trial judge took plea agreement under advisement to allow the school which owned the bus defendant hit to decide whether to object, defendant’s letter to the school apologizing was a plea negotiation statement privileged under Evidence Rule 410 and its admission in evidence was reversible error.

Benefield v. State, No. 41A01-0806-CR-272, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2009)

April 9, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, M. May

[W]hile a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of the instrument may be relevant to show intent to defraud, it is not an essential element of forgery.

Booker v. State, No. 45A03-0806-CR-281, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Providing defense with defendant’s inculpatory statement to officer would have been “right,” but the State’s failure to disclose was not a discovery violation, as discovery order did not include an unrecorded oral statement and State has no independent duty to provide defense with inculpatory evidence.

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mark Dill Plumbing Co., No. 87A01-0807-CV-307, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 25, 2009)

March 27, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, E. Friedlander, M. May

Trial court did not err in denying mortgage owner’s request for a “strict foreclosure” where mortgage owner failed to make junior lienholders parties to the foreclosure action.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 31
  • Go to page 32
  • Go to page 33
  • 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