• 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

Pollard v. State, No. 05S02-0906-CR-305, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 30, 2009)

July 2, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Retroactive application of the sex offender “residency restriction statute” to Pollard violates the Indiana Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.

State v. Cioch, No. 79S05-0902-CR-00092, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., July 1, 2009)

July 2, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Breath test results were admissible even though machine had not been adjusted to reflect daylight savings time.

In re Adoption of Unborn Child B.W., No. 03S04-0810-CV-560, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 26, 2009)

July 2, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme, T. Boehm

Biological father’s consent to the adoption of his child was not irrevocably implied when he failed to file a motion to contest in the adoption court but did take concurrent steps to establish paternity and preserve and assert his parental rights in another court.

Helton v. State, No. 20S04-0901-PC-41, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Defendant who pled guilty after a day of trial failed at his post-conviction hearing to prove that counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress satisfied the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance test; assuming for analysis that the motion to suppress would have been granted, defendant still had to prove prejudice in the P-C.R. 1 hearing by showing that the state would not have had sufficient evidence to convict him had trial continued.

Lucio v. State, No. 29S00-0901-CR-1, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., June 23, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Prompt admonition to jury to disregard lay witness’s statement in violation of motion in limine “though you have never heard of it,” together with other circumstances of the trial, avoided need for mistrial.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 161
  • Go to page 162
  • Go to page 163
  • Go to page 164
  • Go to page 165
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 171
  • 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