• 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

Per Curiam

Falls v. State, No. 19S-CR-557, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2019).

October 15, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A charge of stalking may be supported by conduct that is continuous in nature, even if it is a single episode.

Paquette v. State, No. 19S-CR-502, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 11, 2019).

September 16, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

The proper sentence to avoid double jeopardy violation, where defendant caused three deaths while operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs and fleeing police, was guilt for one count of Level 3 felony resisting law enforcement causing death; two counts of Level 4 felony operating causing death; and one count of Level 6 felony operating causing serious bodily injury.

Faith v. State, No. 19S-PC-499, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 6, 2019).

September 9, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Per Curiam, Supreme

A trial court may impose consecutive advisory sentences in a case involving multiple acts of child molestation against a single victim.

Shaw v. State, No. 19S-PC-466, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 21, 2019).

August 26, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A second or successive post-conviction petition is subject to the screening procedure outlined in P-C. R. 1(12) and must have appellate court authorization to proceed; however, a post-conviction petition that raises only issues emerging from a new trial, new sentencing, or new appeal obtained from a federal court through habeas proceedings is not a “second” or “successive” petition and does not require prior authorization.

Dadouch v. State, No. 19S-CR-404, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 16, 2019).

July 22, 2019 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Trial judges should use both the written advisement of rights form together with the dialogue set forth in the Criminal Benchbook when advising defendants of their rights in a misdemeanor case.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 17
  • 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