How cited: Rose v. State · Go Syfert

Rose v. State (2006)

green · 44 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 19 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 19
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200920172026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green Mishael Johnson v. State of Indiana (2015)
Quote Authority · Ind. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
The doctor’s vouching statements were direct, deliberate, and “the centerpiece of his testimony.” Id. at 369 (“[i]ndeed, his testimony was not based on medical evidence but on his belief that A.G. was telling the truth”).
“[i]ndeed, his testimony was not based on medical evidence but on his belief that A.G. was telling the truth”
green Bradley S. Stock v. State of Indiana (2014)
Quote Authority · Ind. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
The doctor’s vouching statements were direct, deliberate, and “the centerpiece of his testimony.” Id. at 369 (“[i]ndeed, his testimony was not based on medical evidence but on his belief that A.G. was 7 telling the truth”).
“[i]ndeed, his testimony was not based on medical evidence but on his belief that A.G. was 7 telling the truth”
green Russell A. Prosser, Jr. v. State of Indiana (2012)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green Bradley Bradford v. State of Indiana (2012)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) provides that “[w]itnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of 4 allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.” “Such testimony is an invasion of the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should place upon a witness’s testimony.” Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green Bradford v. State (2012)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
An abuse of discretion occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind.2001). *874 Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) provides that “[witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.” “Such testimony is an invasion of the'province of the jur…
green Ellica Ann Houser v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (2016)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
“Such testimony is an invasion of the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should place upon a witness’s testimony.” Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green Melvin C. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (2015)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
In particular, Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), enacted in 1994, provides: “Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.” Cases decided by this court after adoption of the Evidence Rules construed Lawrence “as representing an exception to Rule 704(b) noting that the Rule is relaxed in the child molestation context.” Hoglund, …
green Eric Joya v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (2015)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). [17] Joya maintains that the following comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument constitute improper vouching:  “Now why should you believe S.M.?
green Trinity Ross v. State of Indiana (2014)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green Brandon Brummett v. State of Indiana (2014)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 369 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).
green Michael Widup v. State of Indiana (2014)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions. 6 The testimony encompassed by Indiana Evidence Rule 704(B) is not admissible because it invades “the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should place upon a witness’s testimony.” Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green Heinzman v. State (2012)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).
green Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana (2012)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green Richard Dean Martin v. State of Indiana (2012)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
green State v. Velasquez (2011)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Again, testimony encompassed by Evidence Rule 704(b) is inadmissible because it invades “the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should place upon a witness’s testimony.” Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006).
green Lewis v. State (2010)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 366 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).
green Whedon v. State (2009)
Rule Authority · Ind. Ct. App.
See Ind. Evidence Rule 704(b) ('Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning ... whether a witness has testified truthfully."); Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (noting that a witness may not offer an opinion concerning whether a witness has testified truthfully because it would invade the province of the factfinder in determining what weight it should place upon a witness's testimony).
green Hoglund v. State (2012)
Cited (see also) · Ind. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 367 (Ind.Ct.App.2006); Krumm v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1170, 1178-79 (Ind.Ct.App.2003); Fleener v. State, 648 N.E.2d 652, 657 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), summarily aff'd, in pertinent part by 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1142 (Ind.1995).
green Gutierrez v. State (2012)
Cited · Ind. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363, 369 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (observing that a physician’s testimony that he believed a child molesting victim’s allegations invaded the province of the jury).