Shelby v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that evidence insufficient where a “Buick was stolen a full fifteen days before [the defendant] was found exercising control over it”
• holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction for auto theft where the defendant was found in possession of the vehicle fifteen days after it was stolen
• reversing auto theft conviction because defendant's mere control over the car fifteen days after it was stolen was insufficient to support the conviction
• reversing auto theft conviction because defendant's mere control over the car fifteen days after it was stolen was insufficient to support the conviction
• \The mere unexplained exclusive possession of recently stolen property will sustain a conviction of theft and burglary.\
• \The mere unexplained exclusive possession of recently stolen property will sustain a conviction of theft and burglary.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Gonzalez v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2009-06-25· cited 10×
• Mickel Thacker v. State of Indiana
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2016-11-04· cited 4×
• Jerry Dewayne Decker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2018-03-20
• Markquan Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2018-05-29
• State of Iowa v. Dillon Michael Heiller
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2026-03-20

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Muse v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1981-05-11· cited 47×
• Kidd v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1988-11-17· cited 23×
• Trotter v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2005-12-09· cited 18×
• Ward v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 1973-04-12· cited 15×
• Gibson v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1989-01-31· cited 14×
• Buntin v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2005-12-15· cited 10×