Nichols v. State, No. 29A04-1008-CR-589, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)

Statute, not the trial court or the DOC, determines length of a sex offender’s sex registry obligations.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)

Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Ball v. State, No. 06A01-1007-CR-426, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2011)

“Sleep is not equivalent to a mental disability or deficiency for purposes of the sexual battery statute, and therefore, the State’s evidence that Ball’s victim was sleeping when he began kissing her is insufficient to support his conviction for sexual battery.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Sneed v. State, No. 16A01-1010-CR-544, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2011)

Limiting bail to full cash deposit only, when trial court did not articulate any reasons for not allowing the surety bond defendant requested, and when record did not indicate defendant was a flight risk, was an abuse of discretion.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Serrano v. State, No. 02S03-1104-CV-241, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 27, 2011)

Civil forfeiture evidence failed to establish by the required preponderance that the truck subject to the action had been used in furtherance of the driver’s drug possession or for the purpose of drug possession.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion