tendered instruction in Indiana

2010As explained by our supreme court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind.2002): In reviewing a trial court's decision to give or refuse a tendered instruction, this Court considers whether the in *841 struction (1) correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is covered in substance by other instructions.

2009In reviewing a trial court's decision to give a tendered instruction, an appellate court must decide whether the instruction "(1) correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (@) is not covered in substance by other instructions." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891, 893 (Ind.2002).

2002Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787-88 (Ind.1998); Griffin v. State, 644 N.E.2d 561, 562 (Ind.1994).

2000Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787-88 (Ind.1998); Griffin v. State, 644 N.E.2d 561, 562 (Ind.1994).

2019The trial court did not give the tendered instruction and instead gave an instruction that largely tracked the relevant statutory language that a person may not use force if he is committing a crime. [24] On appeal, the Fuentes court found that, although the trial court’s instruction tracked the language of the statute and was “correct as far as [it] went,” the instruction was “incomplete” because, under Mayes, “the simple fact that a defendant is committing a crime at the time he is allegedly defending himself ‘is not sufficient standing alone to deprive the defendant of the defense of self-

2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-683 | June 5, 2015 Page 4 of 9 [14] Our standard of review in such cases is well settled: When reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse to give a party’s tendered instruction, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind. 2001).

2019To determine whether a jury instruction was properly refused, we consider: “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002).

2018Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “‘In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by declining to give a tendered instruction, we consider the following: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Id. (quoting Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002)).

2019On review, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Id. at 1230-31 (citation omitted).

2018On review, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1703-CR-523 | March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 13 law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Id. at 1230–31. “[W]e consider the instructions as a whole and in reference to each other and do not reverse the trial court for an abuse of discretion unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury as to the law in the cas

2018"When the claimed error is the failure to give an instruction ... a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and implement the request." Scisney v. State , 701 N.E.2d 847 , 848 n.3 (Ind. 1998) (emphasis in original). [32] A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that has some foundation in evidence, Creager v. State , 737 N.E.2d 771 , 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied , even if the ev

2013“Generally, we will reverse a trial court for failure to give a tendered instruction if: 1) the instruction is a correct statement of the law; 2) it is supported by the evidence; 3) it does not repeat material adequately covered by other instructions; and 4) the substantial rights of the tendering party would be prejudiced by failure to give it.” Creager v. State, 737 N.E.2d 771, 776 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2021In Brown, the Indiana Supreme Court explained that if a “trial court rejects a tendered instruction on the basis of its view of the law, as opposed to its finding that there is no serious evidentiary dispute,” then we will review that decision de novo. 703 N.E.2d at 1019 .

2019On the other hand, “if the trial court rejects the tendered instruction on the basis of its view of the law, as opposed to its finding that there is no serious evidentiary dispute, appellate review of the ruling is de novo.” Id.

2016See Springer v. State, 798 N.E.2d 431, 433 (Ind. 2003) (upon review of a refusal to give a tendered instruction, we consider “whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction”).

2015Springer v. State, 798 N.E.2d 431, 433 (Ind. 2003).

2018When we review the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions, we consider "(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; [and] (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which were given." Davis v. State , 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 , 838 (1976) (internal citations omitted).

2018When we review the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions, we consider "(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; [and] (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which were given." Davis v. State , 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 , 838 (1976) (internal citations omitted).

2018On review, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1703-CR-523 | March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 13 law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Id. at 1230–31. “[W]e consider the instructions as a whole and in reference to each other and do not reverse the trial court for an abuse of discretion unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury as to the law in the cas

2017With respect to jury instructions, we usually consider: “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” McGowan v. State, 27 N.E.3d 760, 763-64 (Ind. 2015) (citations omitted).

2018Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “‘In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by declining to give a tendered instruction, we consider the following: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Id. (quoting Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002)).

2018Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “‘In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by declining to give a tendered instruction, we consider the following: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Id. (quoting Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002)).

2001CSX Trans., Inc. v. Kirby, 687 N.E.2d 611 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied.

2001CSX Trans., Inc. v. Kirby, 687 N.E.2d 611 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied.

2024A trial court erroneously refuses to give a tendered instruction if: “(1) the instruction correctly sets out the law; (2) evidence supports the giving of the instruction; and (3) the substance of the tendered instruction is not covered by the other instructions given.” Id. at 1164 .

2010"A trial court erroneously refuses to give a tendered instruction, or part of a tendered instruction, if: (1) the instruction correctly sets out the law; (2) the evidence supports the giving of the instruction; and (3) the substance of the tendered instruction is not covered by the other instructions given." Id. at 1164 . "'As a general rule, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense which has some foundation in the evidence."" Snell, 866 N.E.2d at 396 (quoting Howard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 242, 247 (Ind.Ct.App.2001)).

2025Because no other instruction covered the elements of residential entry, we turn to whether the record supported giving the tendered jury instruction. [12] Where, as here, the tendered instruction was for an alleged lesser-included offense, Indiana courts follow the analytical framework our Supreme Court established in Wright v. State to determine whether the record supported giving the instruction. 658 N.E.2d 563 , 566–67 (Ind. 1995).

2025Cf. Wright, 658 N.E.2d at 567 (explaining that, where there is a serious evidentiary Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1233 | February 21, 2025 Page 13 of 15 dispute, it is reversible error not to give a tendered instruction on a lesser- included offense). [20] All in all, given the trial court’s misapprehension about when the intent to commit a felony or theft must exist for burglary, along with the presence of substantial evidence supporting competing reasonable inferences about Collins’s intent upon entry, we conclude that failing to give the lesser-included instruction was rever

2002“Moreover, one seeking a new trial on the basis of an improper jury instruction must show ‘a reasonable probability that substantial rights of the complaining party have been adversely affected.’” Id. (citing Peak v. Campbell, 578 N.E.2d 360, 362 (Ind.1991) (quoting Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 1130, 1140 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. denied )).

2001Our standard for determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give a tendered instruction is to determine: "(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law, (2) whether the evidence at trial supports the giving of the instruction, and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions given." Peak v. Campbell, 578 N.E.2d 360, 361 (Ind.1991).

1981Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 ; Davis v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 ; School City of Gary v. Claudio, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 628 ; Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co., (1976) 171 Ind.App. 166 , 355 N.E.2d 253 ; Jackman v. Montgomery, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 558 , 320 N.E.2d 770 .” Because the measure of damages sought by Eggacres was included in the given instruction, there was no error in refusing the tendered instruction. 1 We must now consider whether the instruction given by the court was a correct statement of the law, since error is assigned to the giv

1981Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 ; Davis v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 ; School City of Gary v. Claudio, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 628 ; Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co., (1976) 171 Ind.App. 166 , 355 N.E.2d 253 ; Jackman v. Montgomery, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 558 , 320 N.E.2d 770 .” Because the measure of damages sought by Eggacres was included in the given instruction, there was no error in refusing the tendered instruction. 1 We must now consider whether the instruction given by the court was a correct statement of the law, since error is assigned to the giv

2023In Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. 2013), a defendant similarly claimed that the trial court erred in failing to give his proposed instruction that focused on the standpoint of the person experiencing the danger and stated that the person would not be accountable for an error in judgment, provided he acted honestly.

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2777 | December 8, 2020 Page 8 of 16 [16] We find Porter’s argument unpersuasive and conclude that Porter’s Proposed Jury Instruction 6 was an incomplete statement of law because it omitted the qualifying statement of “[u]nless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2 (d); see Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 350 (Ind. 2013) (holding that an instruction was properly refused because it was “misleadingly incomplete”); see also Matheny v. State, 983 N.E.2d 672, 679-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denie

2018"When the claimed error is the failure to give an instruction ... a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and implement the request." Scisney v. State , 701 N.E.2d 847 , 848 n.3 (Ind. 1998) (emphasis in original). [32] A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that has some foundation in evidence, Creager v. State , 737 N.E.2d 771 , 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied , even if the ev

2015“When the claimed error is the failure to give an instruction . . . a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and implement the request.” Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 , 848 n.3 (Ind. 1998) (emphasis in original).

1998Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 570 .

1998Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 570 .

2014Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231, 1236 (Ind. 1991).

1997Day v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1072, 1075 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind.1991)).

2002The State challenges Instruction Number 3 by arguing that the instruction contained a term of art-"reasonable and ordinary care"-which would have required a further instruction. 3 The State contends that according to the holding of Smith v. State, 422 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind.1981), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the instruction because of the failure of Springer to tender an additional instruction defining "reasonable and ordinary care." In Smith, our Supreme Court held that an instruction was properly refused because it contained a term of art for which a further instruction

1981For these reasons, the tendered instruction was confusing and thus properly refused.” (Citations omitted.) Smith, supra, at 1184 .

1987"A three-part test is employed to determine whether a trial court has erred in its refusal to give a tendered instruction: 'In considering whether any error results from refusal of a tendered instruction we must determine: (1) whether the tendered instruction cor *86 rectly states the law, Gayer v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 113 , 210 N.E.2d 852 ; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, Wathen v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 245 , 204 N.E.2d 526 ; (8) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given, Hash v.

1987"A three-part test is employed to determine whether a trial court has erred in its refusal to give a tendered instruction: 'In considering whether any error results from refusal of a tendered instruction we must determine: (1) whether the ten dered instruction correctly states the law, Gayer v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 113 , 210 N.E.2d 852 ; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, Wathen v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 245 , 204 N.E.2d 526 ; (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given, Hash v. Stat