5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
McElroy v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See McElroy, 553 N.E.2d at 839-40 (finding that even though the trial court erred in preventing the defendant from cross-examining an officer regarding certain self-serving statements such error was harmless because the defendant was able to present his recollection of the interrogation during his testimony). | 1 | 1 |
Santana v. Stategreen1 sentence2014On review, we must determine whether “there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trial court could reasonably have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements and waiver of rights were freely and voluntarily made.” Santana v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1355, 1357 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grimm v. State
green
1 sentence1997Grimm, 556 N.E.2d at 1330 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Roberts v. State
green
1 sentence1992Roberts v. State (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 803, 807 . 2 In this case, Steelman has alleged the following portions of the prosecutor's voir dire constituted fundamental error: (1) the prosecutor improperly indoctrinated the prospective jurors instead of simply questioning them, (2) the prosecutor made one-sided and conclusive statements that Steel-man was not entrapped, (8) the prosecutor asked whether the prospective jurors believed surveying was an accurate means of measuring distances, (4) the prosecutor gave credibility to the confidential informant's testimony by explaining the care the | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Patterson v. State
green
2 sentences1989Hearsay Evidence The defendant asserts that he was denied a fair trial by reason of the prosecutor presenting the victim as its last witness after first calling a series of other witnesses who testified about the victim’s statements under the rule of Patterson v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 . 1989Hearsay Evidence The defendant asserts that he was denied a fair trial by reason of the prosecutor presenting the victim as its last witness after first calling a series of other witnesses who testified about the victim’s statements under the rule of Patterson v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.