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 1979–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Driver v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Under the circumstances, we conclude that the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles and that the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the error denied Sowers fundamental due process. 5 See Driver v. State, 594 N.E.2d 488, 493 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that reversible error occurred when the bailiff gave the tape of the final instructions to the jury), trans. denied; Sparks v. State, 154 Ind.App. 691, 692 , 290 N.E.2d 793, 794 (1972) (holding that the conversation between the bailiff and the jury constituted reversible error). 2013Under the circumstances, we conclude that the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles and that the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the error denied Sowers fundamental due process.5 See Driver v. State, 594 N.E.2d 488, 493 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that reversible error occurred when the bailiff gave the tape of the final instructions to the jury), trans. denied; Sparks v. State, 154 Ind. App. 691, 692 , 290 N.E.2d 793, 794 (1972) (holding that the conversation between the bailiff and the jury constituted reversible error). | 1 | 1 |
Sparks v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Under the circumstances, we conclude that the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles and that the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the error denied Sowers fundamental due process. 5 See Driver v. State, 594 N.E.2d 488, 493 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that reversible error occurred when the bailiff gave the tape of the final instructions to the jury), trans. denied; Sparks v. State, 154 Ind.App. 691, 692 , 290 N.E.2d 793, 794 (1972) (holding that the conversation between the bailiff and the jury constituted reversible error). 2013Under the circumstances, we conclude that the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles and that the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the error denied Sowers fundamental due process. 5 See Driver v. State, 594 N.E.2d 488, 493 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that reversible error occurred when the bailiff gave the tape of the final instructions to the jury), trans. denied; Sparks v. State, 154 Ind.App. 691, 692 , 290 N.E.2d 793, 794 (1972) (holding that the conversation between the bailiff and the jury constituted reversible error). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. State
green
1 sentence1994The State waived the filing of an appellate brief in this cause and conceded that the possession instruction given to the jury constituted reversible error. 3 .The instruction given in Chandler provided as follows: "Possession of a large amount of narcotics is circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver.” Id. at 1236 . 4 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hare v. State
green
1 sentence1986While this Court faced a comparable fact situation in Hare v. State, (1984) Ind., 467 N.E.2d 7 , collateral estop-pel presents a different, more narrow question of law. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence1979Moore v. State (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 628 ; Clark v. State (1978) Ind., 380 N.E.2d 550 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Adler v. State
green
2 sentences1979See: Adler v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 9 , 175 N.E.2d 358 where it was held reversible error for the trial court to deny defendant’s motion for an admonishment due to prejudicial remarks uttered by the prosecutor during final argument. 1979See: Adler v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 9 , 175 N.E.2d 358 where it was held reversible error for the trial court to deny defendant’s motion for an admonishment due to prejudicial remarks uttered by the prosecutor during final argument. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence1979Moore v. State (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 628 ; Clark v. State (1978) Ind., 380 N.E.2d 550 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.