5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fourthman v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Fourthman v. State, 658 N.E.2d 88, 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (investigating officer was permitted to remain in the courtroom under the exception set forth in Indiana Evidence Rule 615(b)), trans. denied. 3. 2001Fourthman v. State, 658 N.E.2d 88, 90 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wiseheart v. State
green
1 sentence2024Appellant’s Br. at 12-13. [23] The State further observes, and we agree, that “because K.H. was in the courtroom for the hearing on the parties’ motions, Tyree could have taken her taped statement immediately after the hearing, or the trial court could have permitted Tyree to take her statement on the stand during the hearing.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hernandez v. State
green
1 sentence2002Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Survance v. State
green
1 sentence1985The trial court has discretionary power to allow a witness to testify notwithstanding a violation of a witness separation order, Survance v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1076 , unless appellant can show connivancy or procurement on behalf of the State. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.