• 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

S. David

R.R. v. State, No. 18S-JV-230, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 13, 2018).

September 17, 2018 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, M. Massa, S. David, Supreme

A juvenile has a right to be present at a fact-finding hearing under Ind. Code 31-32-5-1, unless waived by counsel; waived by parent, guardian, custodian, or guardian ad litem; or waived by the child.

State v. Larkin, No. 46S04-1711-CR-701, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2018).

July 2, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Delays resulting from defendant’s interlocutory appeal and motion for change of judge are attributable to him when calculating Criminal Rule 4(C) time period.
When there is prosecutorial misconduct, the remedy characteristically imposed is not to dismiss the charges but to suppress the evidence.

Paquette v. State, No. 63S04-1709-CR-570, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2018).

July 2, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

The resisting law enforcement statute, Ind. Code 35-44.1-3-1, permits only one conviction for each act of resisting, even where multiple deaths are caused by use of a vehicle.

Edmonds v. State, No. 18S-CR-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 20, 2018).

July 2, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

In a companion case to Paquette v. State, the resisting law enforcement statute, Ind. Code section 35-44.1-3-1, authorizes only one conviction for each act of resisting, even when it resulted in the death of one person and serious bodily injury to two others.

Fansler v. State, No. 27S02-1710-CR-672, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 21, 2018).

June 25, 2018 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Ind. Evid. Rule 617 does not require the State to make available at trial electronic recordings of defendant’s incriminating statements made in a motel room because it was not a “place of detention.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 33
  • 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