Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 2007 · …highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance. at p. 8 ✓
27 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ryan Scott Fisher v. State of Indiana (indctapp, 2025-06-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ryan Scott Fisher v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“A trial court does Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-2402 | June 24, 2025 Page 16 of 19 not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight or significance.’” Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)), trans. denied. [40] And there is no evidence that Fisher suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, or, if he did, how that condition contributed to his commission of the crimes in the present case.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christopher A. Bruck v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Wilbert Ward-Bey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
As to Ward-Bey’s participation in a medical research study that could benefit others, “[a] court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert C. Summers, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996) (quoting Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind. 1986)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jason L. Caldwell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)). [18] Here, the evidence regarding Caldwell’s remorse was disputable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Dean Martin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
There is no error in failing to find mitigation when the mitigation claim is “‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Id. at 272 (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)). [21] Martin identifies three proffered mitigators for our review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael D. Dague v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
But it is well established that “[a] trial court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)), trans. denied.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ryan Sheckles v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Moreover, “a court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rogers v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
A trial court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is “highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roush v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
“A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’ ” Id. (quoting *811 Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smithers v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
A trial court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is "highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance." Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rose v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Groves v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
A court does not err in failing to find mitigation "when a mitigation claim is 'highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance." Id. (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jimmerson v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
First, we reiterate the general proposition that "[wlhile a trial court certainly must take into account any established mitigating circumstances, a court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is 'highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance." " Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996) (quoting Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind.1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bacher v. State (2×)
Ind. · 2000 · confidence medium
"A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is `highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.'" Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996) (quoting Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind. 1986)).
cited Cited "see" Cloum v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996).
discussed Cited "see" McCann v. State (2×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996) (quoting Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind.1986)) (holding that a trial court does not err when a mitigation claim is “highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.”) C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allen v. State
Ind. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence medium
A trial court is “not required to find the presence of mitigating factors” or to give the same weight or credit to mitigating evidence as does the defendant, Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind.1993), nor is it “obligated to accept the defendant’s assertions as to what constitutes a mitigating circumstance.” Legue v. State, 688 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind.1997); see also Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind.1996) (no error in failing to find mitigation when claim is “ ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance’ ”) (citation omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard SMITH, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
49S00-9601-CR-81.
Indiana Supreme Court.
Sep 17, 1996.
670 N.E.2d 7
1996 WL 525376
Robert C. Perry, Indianapolis, for'Appellant., Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Rafal Ofierski, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.
Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Selby, Boehm.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Appellant Richard M. Smith appeals his sentence, contending that the trial court did not recognize an appropriate mitigating circumstance. We affirm.

After a trial before a Marion County jury, Smith stands convicted of dealing in cocaine, a class A felony, Ind.Code Ann. § 35-48-4-1 (West Supp.1996), and possession of cocaine, a class C felony, Ind.Code Ann. § 35-48-4-6 (West Supp.1996). The jury also found that he is an habitual offender. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-50-2-8 (West Supp.1996). The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years for dealing and added thirty years for the habitual offender finding, noting Smith’s lengthy criminal record stretching over a decade and a half. The court also imposed a four-year sentence for possession, to be served concurrently.

Smith has contended that he is mentally impaired as a result of brain damage caused by an automobile accident. He contends the trial court erred by not finding that this was a mitigating circumstance to be taken into account while imposing sentence.

The court ordered Smith examined for competency before trial. Two psychiatrists examined Smith and filed reports; each of them found that he was competent to stand trial. One of the doctors, Rodney Deaton, noted that Smith had been in a serious automobile accident in 1977, rendering him comatose for an extended period of time. Deaton said Smith has experienced some brain damage which may have contributed to his failure to learn from experience, exercise judgment, or control his actions. Smith says these statements by Deaton establish facts that should be regarded as mitigating circumstances.

As sometimes is the case, there was another side to Dr. Deaton’s story. Deaton also said that appellant was “of sound mind,” (R. at 40). He also said that Smith is “bright” and “understandfc] the difference between[*8] right and wrong but rationalizes and denies behavioral problems.” (R. at 41.)

While a trial court certainly must take into account any established mitigating circumstances, a court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is “highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind.1986). We conclude that Smith’s claim of mental impairment was sufficiently debatable that the trial court did not err in declining to find mitigating circumstances.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DICKSON, SULLIVAN, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur.