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.
37 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Desmond Turner v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2020“The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011). [15] In the present case, there is substantial evidence of guilt independent of the blood draw. 2020See Turner, 953 N.E.2d at 1059 (“The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.”) (citing Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009)); Cole v. State, 970 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that an error in the admission of evidence does not justify reversal if the evidence is cumulative of other evidence presented at trial). [15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Cross’s convictions. | 3 | 20 |
Lehman v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Lehman, 926 N.E.2d at 37 . [36] Here, both L.S. and C.S. testified at trial to the abuse they were subjected to by Stewart. 2015Lehman v. State, 926 N.E.2d 35, 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). | 3 | 4 |
Hoglund v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012). [16] Here, the only independent evidence of Sturgel’s guilt consisted of J.S.’s testimony. 2014“The improper admission is harmless error if the 7 conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Id. | 2 | 9 |
Lafayette v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Turner, 953 N.E.2d at 1059 (“The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.”) (citing Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009)); Cole v. State, 970 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that an error in the admission of evidence does not justify reversal if the evidence is cumulative of other evidence presented at trial). [15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Cross’s convictions. 2011Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009). | 2 | 2 |
Cole v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Turner, 953 N.E.2d at 1059 (“The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.”) (citing Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009)); Cole v. State, 970 N.E.2d 779, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that an error in the admission of evidence does not justify reversal if the evidence is cumulative of other evidence presented at trial). [15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Cross’s convictions. | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Id. [23] Ind. Evidence Rule 401 provides that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” See Robinson v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1269, 1271-1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting Ind. Evidence Rule 401). | 1 | 1 |
Brian L. Harrison v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2017Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240, 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Mario A. Allen v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014Allen v. State, 994 N.E.2d 316, 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melvin C. Hamilton v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1610-CR-2313| April 27, 2017 Page 10 of 12 court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238 . [19] Barnes asserts that his convictions rest primarily on B.B.’s credibility and that “[e]vidence supporting the credibility of a witness cannot be said to be harmless when the conviction rested primarily on the credibility of the witness.” Appellant’s Br. at 13 (citing Hamilton, 49 N.E.3d at 556 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Devon L. Hunter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.