<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Case Clips</title>
	<atom:link href="http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips</link>
	<description>Published by the Indiana Judicial Center</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:24:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Sowers v. State,  No. 08A02-1208-CR-640, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2013)</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/16/sowers-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sowers-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/16/sowers-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C. Bradford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E. Brown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4699</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/16/sowers-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Moryl v. Ransone, No. 46A04-1112-CT-710, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 9, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/09/moryl-v-ransone/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=moryl-v-ransone</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/09/moryl-v-ransone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 18:37:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>awishin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J. Baker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A proposed medical malpractice complaint is not considered filed when a copy of the proposed complaint is delivered to a third-party carrier.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/09/moryl-v-ransone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/vanpatten-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=vanpatten-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/vanpatten-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 19:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[M. Massa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S. David]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4688</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/vanpatten-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steen v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-877, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/steen-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=steen-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/steen-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 18:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N. Vaidik]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4686</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Printing of store’s name “H &#038; M” on security tags and store labels was not hearsay under Evidence Rule 801(c) because it was “not capable of being true or not true.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/steen-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lovold v. Ellis, No. 54A01-1209-DR-410, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 26, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/lovold-v-ellis/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lovold-v-ellis</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/lovold-v-ellis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>awishin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[M. Robb]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Living expenses for a child living on campus should not be included in the child support order when the child has repudiated the parent and the parent is not required to contribute to the child’s post-secondary education.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/05/02/lovold-v-ellis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilmette v. State,  No. 71A04-1205-CR-250, __ N.E.2 __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 22, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/guilmette-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilmette-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/guilmette-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C. Darden]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When authorities have taken an inmate’s clothing for inventory and safekeeping while he awaits trial, the Indiana Constitution requires that they must obtain a warrant to test the clothing regarding an unrelated, uncharged crime.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/guilmette-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Erkins v. State, No. 58A01-1205-CR-215, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. Ap., Apr. 23, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/erkins-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=erkins-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/erkins-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T. Crone]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The State may obtain a conviction of Class A conspiracy to commit robbery with proof that the conspirators intended to cause serious bodily injury in committing the robbery.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/erkins-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Robinson v. State,  No. 20A04-1209-CR-561, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 23, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/robinson-v-state-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=robinson-v-state-3</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/robinson-v-state-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T. Crone]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brief contact twice with the fog line on a curvy road at night did not confer reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/robinson-v-state-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keck v. State, , __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 24, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/keck-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=keck-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/keck-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[M. May]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4664</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Affirms trial judge’s conclusion that poor county road conditions made driving left-of-center necessary so that officer did not have a reasonable suspicion for stopping motorist driving on the left.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/keck-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meehan v. State,  No. 71A04-1209-CR-453, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 25, 2013).</title>
		<link>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/meehan-v-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=meehan-v-state</link>
		<comments>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/meehan-v-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:32:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mmcmahon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T. Crone]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/?p=4662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Presence of defendant’s DNA on an object at the crime scene, standing alone, was insufficient to prove he committed the offense.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://indianacourts.us/blogs/caseclips/2013/04/25/meehan-v-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
