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 1 courts 1994–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hampton v. Stategreen1 sentence2020He cites the Indiana pattern jury instruction on burden of proof, which provides, in relevant part: “In determining whether the guilt of the accused is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should require that the proof be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.” 2 Ind. Judges Ass’n, Ind. Pattern Jury Instructions-Criminal 13.1. [55] The Indiana Supreme Court has determined that the jury should be instructed on the “reasonable theory of innocence” when the “defendant’s conduct required for the commission of a charged offense . . . is established exclusively b | 1 | 1 |
Robbins v. Fugitgreen2 sentences2018Id. (citing Robbins v. Fugit, 189 Ind. 165 , 126 N.E. 321, 322 (1920) (giving fourteen or fifteen instructions on undue influence in will contest case was needless repetition amounting to argument by the court which may mislead the jury)). [16] In the present case, the trial court provided the jury with the Indiana pattern jury instruction, which stated: The Court further instructs you that one person may kill another under such circumstances that the homicide or killing constitutes no crime, but is justified by the law. 2018Id. (citing Robbins v. Fugit, 189 Ind. 165 , 126 N.E. 321, 322 (1920) (giving fourteen or fifteen instructions on undue influence in will contest case was needless repetition amounting to argument by the court which may mislead the jury)). [16] In the present case, the trial court provided the jury with the Indiana pattern jury instruction, which stated: The Court further instructs you that one person may kill another under such circumstances that the homicide or killing constitutes no crime, but is justified by the law. | 1 | 1 |
Boney v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Boney v. State, 880 N.E.2d 279, 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see Peterson, 699 N.E.2d at 707 (finding error where “the trial court’s instruction did not impart the information provided by the Indiana pattern jury instruction on accomplice liability”). | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Anita contends that our decision in Peterson requires that a trial court explicitly inform the jury that “some affirmative conduct” on the part of the defendant is required in order to find the defendant guilty as an accomplice. 699 N.E.2d at 707 . 2014Boney v. State, 880 N.E.2d 279, 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); see Peterson, 699 N.E.2d at 707 (finding error where “the trial court’s instruction did not impart the information provided by the Indiana pattern jury instruction on accomplice liability”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gebhart v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. (citing Robbins v. Fugit, 189 Ind. 165 , 126 N.E. 321, 322 (1920) (giving fourteen or fifteen instructions on undue influence in will contest case was needless repetition amounting to argument by the court which may mislead the jury)). [16] In the present case, the trial court provided the jury with the Indiana pattern jury instruction, which stated: The Court further instructs you that one person may kill another under such circumstances that the homicide or killing constitutes no crime, but is justified by the law. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brian L. Harrison v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2016The Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1601-CR-1 | November 14, 2016] Page 7 of 9 pattern jury instructions are given “preferential treatment during litigation,” meaning that “the preferred practice is to use the pattern instructions,” and many pattern instructions also include the term “defendant.” Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240 , 252 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming the trial court’s use of a jury instruction based on an Indiana pattern jury instruction utilizing the term “defendant”), trans. denied. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Light v. State
green
1 sentence1994Light v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1073 ; Kiper v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1353 ; Burgess v. State (1983), Ind., 444 N.E.2d 1193 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Burgess v. State
green
1 sentence1994Light v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1073 ; Kiper v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1353 ; Burgess v. State (1983), Ind., 444 N.E.2d 1193 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kiper v. State
green
1 sentence1994Light v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1073 ; Kiper v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1353 ; Burgess v. State (1983), Ind., 444 N.E.2d 1193 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |