Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2005 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Medina v. California
green
2 sentences2005In Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 , 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992), the Supreme Court relied on Patterson in sustaining a state burden of proof rule as to incompetency to stand trial. 2005In Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 , 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 (1992), the Supreme Court relied on Patterson in sustaining a state burden of proof rule as to incompetency to stand trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences1994That the intoxication instruction given in Petitioner Huffman's case constitutes fundamental error, as defined in Hall v. State (1991), Ind., 574 N.E.2d 287 , in that a reasonable juror could conclude that the instruction calls for the Defendant to prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt and calls for proof of specific facts. ..... 11. 1994That the intoxication instruction given in Petitioner Huffman's case constitutes fundamental error, as defined in Hall v. State (1991), Ind., 574 N.E.2d 287 , in that a reasonable juror could conclude that the instruction calls for the Defendant to prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt and calls for proof of specific facts. [[Image here]] 11. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fowler v. State
green
2 sentences1991In Fowler v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1181 , and Powers v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1225 , relied upon by appellant, this Court held that an intoxication defense instruction which placed the burden upon the defendant to prove the defense of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt was an erroneous statement of the law in that it shifted the burden of proof upon an element of the crime, i.e., intent, to the defendant. 1991In Fowler v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1181 , and Powers v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1225 , relied upon by appellant, this Court held that an intoxication defense instruction which placed the burden upon the defendant to prove the defense of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt was an erroneous statement of the law in that it shifted the burden of proof upon an element of the crime, i.e., intent, to the defendant. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Powers v. State
green
2 sentences1991In Fowler v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1181 , and Powers v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1225 , relied upon by appellant, this Court held that an intoxication defense instruction which placed the burden upon the defendant to prove the defense of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt was an erroneous statement of the law in that it shifted the burden of proof upon an element of the crime, i.e., intent, to the defendant. 1991In Fowler v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1181 , and Powers v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1225 , relied upon by appellant, this Court held that an intoxication defense instruction which placed the burden upon the defendant to prove the defense of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt was an erroneous statement of the law in that it shifted the burden of proof upon an element of the crime, i.e., intent, to the defendant. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Leland v. Oregon
green
2 sentences1981Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 ; Leland v. Oregon, (1952) 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 . 1981Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 ; Leland v. Oregon, (1952) 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Patterson v. New York
green
2 sentences1981Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 ; Leland v. Oregon, (1952) 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 . 1981Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 ; Leland v. Oregon, (1952) 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Hill v. Ward
green
2 sentences1915Hill v. Ward (1910), 45 Ind. App. 458, 460 , 91 N. E. 38 . 1915Hill v. Ward (1910), 45 Ind. App. 458, 460 , 91 N. E. 38 . | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.