|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Indiana - October 24 - October 26, 2007
|
| |
Maymon v. State, No. 48A02-0611-PC-1060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2007, Decided, October 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petition for rehearing on appellate opinion reversing inmate's convictions for class A felony burglary, Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(2), upon inmate's petition for postconviction relief, was granted because the proper remedy for ineffectiveness of defense counsel in failing to seek severance of the charges was a remand for retrial on those convictions.
|
|
| |
Shelby v. State, No. 49A05-0704-CR-202,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2007, Decided, October 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Evidence was not sufficient to support conviction for auto theft under Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.5(b), as there was a 15-day delay between theft and defendant's possession of car, State provided no evidence suggesting defendant exclusively possessed car from time it was stolen, and there was no connection made between defendant and items found in car.
|
|
| |
State v. Parham, No. 02A03-0701-CR-37,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2007, Decided, October 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Search of the vehicle defendant was driving violated Ind. Const. art. 1, § 11, because the officer never indicated a concern for his safety and there was no evidence presented concerning a need to search the vehicle to find and preserve evidence connected to the crime for which defendant was under arrest, misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
