37 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1872–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salinas v. Texasgreen2 sentences2019V ; Cameron v. State , 22 N.E.3d 588 , 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). "[A] witness who desires the protection of the privilege must claim it at the time he relies on it." Salinas v. Texas , 570 U.S. 178 , 183, 133 S.Ct. 2174 , 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013) (plurality opinion) (quotation and ellipsis omitted); Nichols v. State , 55 N.E.3d 854 , 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied . "[N]o ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege" against self-incrimination. 2019V ; Cameron v. State , 22 N.E.3d 588 , 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). "[A] witness who desires the protection of the privilege must claim it at the time he relies on it." Salinas v. Texas , 570 U.S. 178 , 183, 133 S.Ct. 2174 , 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013) (plurality opinion) (quotation and ellipsis omitted); Nichols v. State , 55 N.E.3d 854 , 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied . "[N]o ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege" against self-incrimination. | 2 | 3 |
Canfield v. Sandockgreen2 sentences1999Id. at 608 , citing Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526, 530-31 (Ind.1990). 1999Id. at 608 , citing Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526, 530-31 (Ind.1990). | 2 | 3 |
James Mira v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016See id. at 2178-2180 (a plurality opinion held that a witness does not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination by simply standing mute and that the prosecution’s use of the defendant’s noncustodial silence did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the defendant failed to state that he was not answering the officer’s question on Fifth Amendment grounds); Mira v. State, 3 N.E.3d 985, 986-989 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (noting that the defendant did not call a detective back after the detective wrote a letter indicating that the defendant was a suspect in a larceny and needed to contact the dete 2015See Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 , 2179- 81 (2013) (explaining that a witness who desires the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination must claim it, and one generally does not do so by simply standing mute); Mira v. State, 3 N.E.3d 985, 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1503-CR-110 | October 15, 2015 Page 8 of 9 (finding no Fifth Amendment violation where evidence was presented that the defendant did not call a detective back to schedule a meeting to discuss a theft investigation because his failure to do so did not support a fi | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. Bairgreen2 sentences2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s 2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s | 2 | 2 |
Massey v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s 2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s | 2 | 2 |
Terre Haute Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Basdengreen2 sentences2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful "not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible," but concluding that a patient waives the privilege "by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege"); Terre Haute Reg'l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s 2011See id. at 238 , 268 N.E.2d at 99 (mindful “not [to] discount the concern of the Indiana General Assembly that the confidential nature of the physician-patient relationship be preserved at the cost of rendering certain evidence inadmissible,” but concluding that a patient waives the privilege “by pursing a course of conduct inconsistent with a continued observance of the privilege”); Terre Haute Reg’l Hosp., Inc. v. Basden, 524 N.E.2d 1306, 1309-11 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (refusing to write-in a good faith requirement or to require a balancing test in the application of the peer review privilege); s | 2 | 2 |
Owen v. Owengreen2 sentences2017For example in Owen v. Owen, 563 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. 1990), we addressed the physician/patient privilege declaring: [I]n those rare cases where the physician-patient privilege is properly invoked, it is incumbent on the party seeking to assert the privilege to identify to the court specifically which documents are believed to remain within the privilege, after which the court will review the contested documents in camera to ascertain their entitlement to the protection of the privilege. 2017For example in Owen v. Owen, 563 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. 1990), we addressed the physician/patient privilege declaring: [I]n those rare cases where the physician-patient privilege is properly invoked, it is incumbent on the party seeking to assert the privilege to identify to the court specifically which documents are believed to remain within the privilege, after which the court will review the contested documents in camera to ascertain their entitlement to the protection of the privilege. | 1 | 5 |
United States v. Moniagreen2 sentences2001If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been "compelled" within the meaning of the Amendment. *795 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984) (quoting United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 63 S.Ct. 409 , 87 L.Ed. 376 (1948)). 2001If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been "compelled" within the meaning of the Amendment. *795 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984) (quoting United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 63 S.Ct. 409 , 87 L.Ed. 376 (1948)). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Crisis Connection, Inc.green1 sentence2024We “are bound by the General Assembly’s determination of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-2404 | September 16, 2024 Page 6 of 9 whether a particular interest is sufficient enough to justify the creation of a privilege and the scope of the protection provided under that privilege.” In re Crisis Connection, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 789, 793 (Ind. 2011). [11] The General Assembly has provided exceptions to this confidentiality in Indiana Code section 31-33-18-2. | 1 | 1 |
Pennycuff v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Third, even assuming arguendo that the State’s question and Sergeant Rosen’s testimony could otherwise be considered a violation of Thayer’s privilege against self-incrimination, Thayer opened the door to this testimony by testifying that he had cooperated with the police “absolutely[,] every time.” See Pennycuff v. State, 745 N.E.2d 804, 813 (Ind. 2001) (concluding that evidence of defendant’s silence was admissible to rebut the defendant’s claims that he had cooperated with police). | 1 | 1 |
Ronald Skipworth v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009Skipworth v. U.S., 508 F.2d 598, 601-02 (3rd Cir.1975). 2009Skipworth v. U.S., 508 F.2d 598, 601-02 (3rd Cir.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co.green1 sentence1999See Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 531 F.Supp. 951, 955 (N.D.Ill.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.green1 sentence1999See Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Company, 104 F.R.D. 103, 105 (S.D.N.Y.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Underwater Storage, Inc. v. United States Rubber Co.green1 sentence1999See Underwater Storage v. United States Rubber Company, 314 F.Supp. 546, 548-549 (D.D.C.1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Rosen v. Reedgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boyd v. United States
red
2 sentences2011Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 [ (1886) ]. 2011Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 [ (1886) ]. | 3 | 1972–2011 |
Pennsylvania v. Muniz
green
2 sentences1999To avoid the “cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt” from which the Fifth Amendment provides protection, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 596 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), quoting Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212 , 108 S.Ct. 2341 , 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988), in camera, ex parte evaluations have been endorsed. 1999To avoid the “cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt” from which the Fifth Amendment provides protection, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 596 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), quoting Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212 , 108 S.Ct. 2341 , 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988), in camera, ex parte evaluations have been endorsed. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences1999They rely on Hoffman , where the Supreme Court stated that if a witness, upon interposing a claim of privilege against self-incrimination, were required to “prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court,” he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege guarantees. 341 U.S. at 485 , 71 S.Ct. 814 . 1999They rely on Hoffman , where the Supreme Court stated that if a witness, upon interposing a claim of privilege against self-incrimination, were required to “prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usually required to be established in court,” he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege guarantees. 341 U.S. at 485 , 71 S.Ct. 814 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Doe v. United States
green
2 sentences1999To avoid the “cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt” from which the Fifth Amendment provides protection, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 596 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), quoting Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212 , 108 S.Ct. 2341 , 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988), in camera, ex parte evaluations have been endorsed. 1999To avoid the “cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt” from which the Fifth Amendment provides protection, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 596 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 , 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990), quoting Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 212 , 108 S.Ct. 2341 , 101 L.Ed.2d 184 (1988), in camera, ex parte evaluations have been endorsed. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Counselman v. Hitchcock
green
2 sentences1975Such situations call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege ‘is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard,’ Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 .” Moreover, implicit recognition of the testimonial character of polygraph examinations appears in our Supreme Court’s decision in Reid v. State, supra. Therein, the court determined that defendant’s express waiver in his petition requesting the polygraph examination precluded any claim of a Fifth Amendment violation by the subsequent admission of the test results into evidence. 1972Such situations call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege ‘is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard,’ Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 US 547, 562 , 35 L ed 1110, 1114, 12 S Ct 195 . % sfc :*« í¡i i{i 8. | 2 | 1972–1975 |
Quinn v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Quinn v. United States , 349 U.S. 155 , 164, 75 S.Ct. 668 , 99 L.Ed. 964 (1955). 2019Quinn v. United States , 349 U.S. 155 , 164, 75 S.Ct. 668 , 99 L.Ed. 964 (1955). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mark D. Nichols v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2019V ; Cameron v. State , 22 N.E.3d 588 , 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). "[A] witness who desires the protection of the privilege must claim it at the time he relies on it." Salinas v. Texas , 570 U.S. 178 , 183, 133 S.Ct. 2174 , 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013) (plurality opinion) (quotation and ellipsis omitted); Nichols v. State , 55 N.E.3d 854 , 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied . "[N]o ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege" against self-incrimination. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Alexis Cameron v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2019V ; Cameron v. State , 22 N.E.3d 588 , 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). "[A] witness who desires the protection of the privilege must claim it at the time he relies on it." Salinas v. Texas , 570 U.S. 178 , 183, 133 S.Ct. 2174 , 186 L.Ed.2d 376 (2013) (plurality opinion) (quotation and ellipsis omitted); Nichols v. State , 55 N.E.3d 854 , 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied . "[N]o ritualistic formula is necessary in order to invoke the privilege" against self-incrimination. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Owens v. State
green
1 sentence2016See id. at 2178-2180 (a plurality opinion held that a witness does not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination by simply standing mute and that the prosecution’s use of the defendant’s noncustodial silence did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the defendant failed to state that he was not answering the officer’s question on Fifth Amendment grounds); Mira v. State, 3 N.E.3d 985, 986-989 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (noting that the defendant did not call a detective back after the detective wrote a letter indicating that the defendant was a suspect in a larceny and needed to contact the dete | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Kordel
green
2 sentences2001A defendant's "failure at any time to assert the constitutional- privilege leaves him in no position to complain now that he was compelled to give testimony against himself." Id. at 428-29 , 104 S.Ct. 1186 (quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 10 , 90 S.Ct. 763 , 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970)). 2001A defendant's "failure at any time to assert the constitutional- privilege leaves him in no position to complain now that he was compelled to give testimony against himself." Id. at 428-29 , 104 S.Ct. 1186 (quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 10 , 90 S.Ct. 763 , 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Minnesota v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2001If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been "compelled" within the meaning of the Amendment. *795 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984) (quoting United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 63 S.Ct. 409 , 87 L.Ed. 376 (1948)). 2001If, therefore, he desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it or he will not be considered to have been "compelled" within the meaning of the Amendment. *795 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 , 104 S.Ct. 1136 , 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984) (quoting United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 427 , 63 S.Ct. 409 , 87 L.Ed. 376 (1948)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ralph L. Gray, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. O. Gene Bicknell, Appellee/cross-Appellant
green
1 sentence2000Id See also Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472 (8th Cir.1996). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hale v. Henkel
green
2 sentences2000The gist of the protection is in the requirement . .. that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.”) (emphases added); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 73 , 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906) (subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury investigating an alleged violation of the Anti-Trust Act) ("[T]he search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel, through a subpoena duces tecum, the production, upon a trial in court, of documentary evidence.”), overruled in part on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York H 2000The gist of the protection is in the requirement . .. that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.”) (emphases added); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 73 , 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906) (subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury investigating an alleged violation of the Anti-Trust Act) ("[T]he search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel, through a subpoena duces tecum, the production, upon a trial in court, of documentary evidence.”), overruled in part on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York H | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
red
2 sentences2000The gist of the protection is in the requirement . .. that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.”) (emphases added); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 73 , 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906) (subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury investigating an alleged violation of the Anti-Trust Act) ("[T]he search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel, through a subpoena duces tecum, the production, upon a trial in court, of documentary evidence.”), overruled in part on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York H 2000The gist of the protection is in the requirement . .. that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.”) (emphases added); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 73 , 26 S.Ct. 370 , 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906) (subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury investigating an alleged violation of the Anti-Trust Act) ("[T]he search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel, through a subpoena duces tecum, the production, upon a trial in court, of documentary evidence.”), overruled in part on other grounds, Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York H | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence1999Moore, 698 N.E.2d at 1209 . ■ In this case, the only element of force charged creating a substantial interference *412 with liberty was that inherent in the robbery itself. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Boydston v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1991Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Calero v. Del Chemical Corp. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Board of Com'rs of Delaware County v. Briggs green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Coombs v. Rose green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Kleizer v. Symmes neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Henry v. Moberly green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Henry v. Moberly green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Overman v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Board of Commissioners v. Johnson neutral | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Board of Commissioners of Huntington Co. v. Heaston green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| American Car & Foundry Co. v. Nachand neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Bower v. Bower green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| McDonald v. McDonald green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| Seifert v. State green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| Miller v. Miller neutral | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| Murtaugh v. City of St. Louis neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Marsh v. . Chickering green | 1 | 1894–1894 |
| Hemenway v. Smith neutral | 1 | 1873–1873 |
| Jarvis v. Hatheway neutral | 1 | 1872–1872 |
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.
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.