• 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

Supreme

VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).

May 2, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, S. David, Supreme

The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.

Meredith v. Pence, No. 49S00-1203-PL-172,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., March 26, 2013).

March 28, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“[T]he Indiana school voucher program, the Choice Scholarship Program, is within the legislature’s power under Article 8, Section 1, and that the enacted program does not violate either Section 4 or Section 6 of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

Crider v. State, No. 91S05-1206-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).

March 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal could not prevent his challenging on appeal the trial court’s erroneous imposition of consecutive habitual offender enhancements not agreed to in the bargain.

Dye v. State, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 21, 2013).

March 22, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: M. Massa, R. Rucker, Supreme

“[T]he State is not . . . permitted to support [an] habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove [defendant] was a serious violent felon.”

Bethea v. State, No. 18S05-1206-PC-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 12, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Overrules cases holding that an element of a charge dismissed by plea agreement cannot be used as an aggravating sentencing factor, and holds that instead elements or conduct involved in dismissed charges may be used in sentencing unless the parties provide otherwise in their plea agreement.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 126
  • Go to page 127
  • Go to page 128
  • Go to page 129
  • Go to page 130
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 174
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs