 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Boyd v. State, No. 03A01-0701-CR-1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Right to confrontation was not violated by admission of statement by victim, defendant's deceased wife, as defendant forfeited right to confront victim by killing her. Although other evidence may have been sufficient evidence to support battery conviction, hearsay statement corroborated officers' testimony and provided specific account of battery.
|
|||||
| In re Beerbower, Supreme Court Cause No. 02S00-0704-DI-176,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, an attorney was suspended pendente lite from the practice of law until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting disciplinary action. He had been found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, causing serious bodily injury, and had consented to his suspension.
|
|||||
| In re Eckert, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0611-DI-445,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney, inter alia, did not communicate with clients, was dishonest with courts and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, the attorney was suspended for at least three years for violating Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), (b), 1.6(a), 1.8(h)(2), 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), (b), and 8.4(a), (c).
|
|||||
| In re Haynes, Supreme Court Cause No. 84S00-0609-DI-342,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney borrowed money from a client without first instructing the client in writing to seek the advice of independent counsel, the attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(a); the attorney was suspended for 30 days with automatic reinstatement, as conditioned by Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(4)(c).
|
|||||
| In re Thompson, Supreme Court Cause No. 88S00-0701-DI-12,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney was convicted of possessing cocaine, he violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b); however, due to various mitigating factors, the attorney was suspended for six months, with the first 30 days served as active suspension, the balance was stayed subject to successful completion of one year of probation.
|
|||||
| Rutherford v. State, No. 49A04-0608-CR-462,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony of one eyewitness, who knew defendant personally and picked him out of photo lineup, was sufficient to support convictions. Conviction for attempted battery and criminal recklessness violated Double Jeopardy Clause of Ind. Const. art. I, § 14. as there was reasonable possibility trial court utilized same evidence to establish both crimes.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. State, No. 49A04-0608-CR-465,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 25, 2007, Decided , May 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was insufficient evidence to prove defendant was under 18, as required for dangerous possession of firearm by child conviction. Criminal recklessness conviction violated Double Jeopardy Clause, Ind. Const. art. I, § 14, as there was good probability same evidence was used to establish elements of attempted battery and criminal recklessness.
|
|||||
| Barnett v. State, No. 48A02-0605-CR-389,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 29, 2007, Decided , May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A 12-year pre-indictment delay denied defendant's Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial because (1) the delay was not due to a lack of information, so there was no evidence the delay was justified, and (2) defendant was prejudiced by an inability to properly investigate, and interview and depose eyewitnesses, due to missing and deceased witnesses.
|
|||||
| Drane v. State, No. 45S04-0611-CR-477,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 29, 2007, Decided , May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rape and murder convictions were reinstated by the supreme court because (1) defendant admitted having intercourse with the victim on the night of the murder, (2) it was reasonable to infer the van defendant drove was parked near the crime scene on the night of the murder, and (3) there was no evidence that anyone else raped the victim.
|
|||||
| In re V.C. v. Carlson, No. 49A04-0602-JV-86,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 29, 2007, Decided , May 29, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in adjudicating a child as a child in need of services on grounds different than those set forth in the petition. The mother had had notice that the effect of her actions on the child's mental health would be an issue at trial; thus, the issue had been tried by consent under Ind. R. Trial P. 15(B).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
