• 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

Hayworth v. State, No. 07A01-0804-CR-197, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2009)

April 24, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Continuing objection procedure requires counsel to remain silent during the subsequent admission of the class of evidence subject to the objection. Search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause due to insufficient corroboration of informant’s statements. Affiant detective’s misleading statements amounted to deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct which “good faith” doctrine would not excuse to save the search.

Hape v. State, No. 63A01-0804-CR-175, __ N.E.2D __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2009)

April 3, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Hape v. State (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.) – As text messages are intrinsic to the cell phones in which they are stored, messages played by jurors in deliberations on a phone admitted without objection as an exhibit could not be used to impeach the jury’s verdict. Text messages are subject to authentication separate from that offered for the phone they are on.

In re N.E., No. 49A02-0806-JV-522, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 19, 2009)

March 20, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, P. Riley

Where DCS alleged Child to be a CHINS with respect to Mother, but not with respect to Father, Court of Appeals remanded the case for determination of whether Father is willing and able to appropriately parent Child.

Dunn v. State, No. 20A03-0807-CR-362, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2009)

February 20, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Statutory consecutive sentence limitations applicable only to felonies did not preclude sentence that three one year misdemeanors sentences be consecutive.

Lafayette v. State, No. 45A03-0803-CR-118, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik, T. Crone

In plurality opinion, concurring judge and dissenting judge take position that rape defendant puts his intent at issue for purposes of Evidence Rule 404(b) when he asserts sex was consensual; lead opinion takes contrary position.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 43
  • Go to page 44
  • Go to page 45
  • Go to page 46
  • 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