• 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

N. Vaidik

Perry v. State, No. 49A05-1012-CR-774, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2011).

August 26, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Admission of hospital nurse’s record of statements assault victim made to nurse, including identity of attacker, did not violate either the hearsay rule or the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule.

Sharp . State, No. 12A02-1010-CR-1188, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 19, 2011).

July 22, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Defendant’s convictions for Class A child molesting and Class C child molesting, alleged to have occurred during the same 13 month period, did not violate Indiana double jeopardy under the “actual evidence test.”

Butler V. State, No. 84A01-1008-CR-414, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 27, 2011)

July 1, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Greer v. State’s holding, that a probationer who proceeds pro se and admits the petition need not be advised of the “pitfalls of self-representation,” applies despite decision in Hopper v. State requiring guilty plea advice of dangers of proceeding pro se and “that an attorney is usually more experienced in plea negotiations and better able to identify and evaluate any potential defenses and evidentiary or procedural problems in the prosecution’s case.”

Cartwright v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-214, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2011)

June 24, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik

Finds the State’s four race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenge to only African-American venireperson to have been pretextual because the trial judge made no finding which of the four reasons it relied on to reject the Batson challenge and because the State failed to “develop anything beyond the most superficial of records regarding its reasons.”

Mitchell v. State, No. 49A02-1003-CR-340, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 6, 2011)

April 8, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Traditional rule that a post-conviction court may not take judicial of the transcript in the original proceedings appears to have been ended by the 2010 amendment to Evidence Rule 201(b)(5) allowing judicial notice of “records of a court of this state,” but since petitioner did not request judicial notice and court did not sua sponte take it the transcript was not in evidence in the post-conviction proceeding.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 35
  • Go to page 36
  • Go to page 37
  • Go to page 38
  • Go to page 39
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 47
  • 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