exceptions to the general rule in Indiana

28 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1885–2020 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Medvid v. Stategreen indctapp · 1977 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1994–1999 2 sentences 1999In Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 579 (Ind.1994), our supreme court noted that: One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character in issue by raising the defense of entrapment_ [Citation omitted]. [Medvid v. State, 172 Ind.App. 27, 30 , 359 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1977)] (“To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his criminal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the jury migh 1999In Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 579 (Ind.1994), our supreme court noted that: One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character in issue by raising the defense of entrapment_ [Citation omitted]. [Medvid v. State, 172 Ind.App. 27, 30 , 359 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1977)] (“To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his criminal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the jury migh	2	2
PSI Energy, Inc. v. Robertsgreen ind · 2005 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006Moreover, our supreme court has recently held that "in the absence of negligent selection of the contractor, an employee of the contractor has no claim against the principal based solely on the five exceptions to the general rule of nonliability for acts of the contractor." PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 829 N.E.2d 943 953 (Ind.2005) (emphasis added).	1	1
Dockery v. Stategreen ind · 1994 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999In Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 579 (Ind.1994), our supreme court noted that: One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character in issue by raising the defense of entrapment_ [Citation omitted]. [Medvid v. State, 172 Ind.App. 27, 30 , 359 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1977)] (“To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his criminal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the jury migh 1999In Dockery v. State, 644 N.E.2d 573, 579 (Ind.1994), our supreme court noted that: One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character in issue by raising the defense of entrapment. . . . [Citation omitted]. [ Medvid v. State, 172 Ind.App. 27, 30 , 359 N.E.2d 274, 276 (1977)] ("To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his criminal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the ju	1	1
Hardin v. Stategreen ind · 1993 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 128 ; Byrd v. State (1992), Ind., 593 N.E.2d 1183, 1184-85 ; Penley, 506 N.E.2d at 808 . [6] 579 One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character at issue by raising the defense of entrapment. 1994*Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 131 ("In instances where entrapment is presented as a defense, the state may introduce evidence of the defendant's character to rebut the defense."); Allen v. State (1988), Ind., 518 N.E.2d 800, 802 ("It was not error to admit evidence of appellant's prior convictions once he indicated an intention to use an entrapment defense."); Medvid, 172 Ind. App. at 30 , 359 N.E.2d at 276 ("To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his criminal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the jury m	1	1
Allen v. Stategreen ind · 1988 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 131 ("In instances where entrapment is presented as a defense, the state may introduce evidence of the defendant's character to rebut the defense."); Allen v. State (1988), Ind., 518 N.E.2d 800, 802 ("It was not error to admit evidence of appellant's prior convictions once he indicated an intention to use an entrapment defense."); Medvid, 172 Ind. App. at 30 , 359 N.E.2d at 276 ("To establish [that the government merely afforded the defendant an opportunity to satisfy his criminal intent] it is proper for the state to present evidence of prior crimes from which the jury m	1	1
Burns v. Stategreen ind · 1970 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986See, Burns v. State (1970), 260 N.E.2d 559 .	1	1
Gears v. Stategreen ind · 1932 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1939–1939 2 sentences 1939The exceptions to the general rule cannot be stated with categorical precision, but generally speaking, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged, when it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (8) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proving of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.” In the case of Gears v. State (1981), 203 Ind. 380, 382, 383, 384 , 180 N. E. 585 , this court f 1939The exceptions to the general rule cannot be stated with categorical precision, but generally speaking, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged, when it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (8) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proving of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.” In the case of Gears v. State (1981), 203 Ind. 380, 382, 383, 384 , 180 N. E. 585 , this court f	1	1
Jenney Electric Co. v. Branhamgreen ind · 1895 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1911–1911	1	1
Hodges v. Truaxgreen indctapp · 1898 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1902–1902	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (31)

Case	Cited	Years
Royse v. Leaming neutral ind · 1880 2 sentences 1962This constitutes one of the exceptions to the general rule upon the subject of hearsay evidence. 1 Greenleaf Ev., section 147; Royse, Exr. v. Leaming, 72 Ind. 182 . “ ‘Mr. Greenleaf, Vol. 1, section 148, in discussing the admissibility of this class of evidence, says: “The ground upon which this evidence is received, is the extreme improbability of its falsehood. 1898This constitutes one of the exceptions to the general rule upon the subject of hearsay evidence. 1 Greenleaf Ev., section 147; Royse, Exr., v. Leaming, 72 Ind. 182 .	3	1890–1962
State v. Smithers green ind · 1971 2 sentences 1977Vale v. Louisiana (1970), 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 ; State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 .” (Emphasis added). 1977Vale v. Louisiana (1970), 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 ; State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 .” (Emphasis added).	2	1974–1977
Smith v. State green ind · 1971 2 sentences 1977Vale v. Louisiana (1970), 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 ; State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 .” (Emphasis added). 1977Vale v. Louisiana (1970), 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 ; State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 .” (Emphasis added).	2	1974–1977
Vale v. Louisiana green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 1977Vale v. Louisiana (1970), 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 ; State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 .” (Emphasis added). 1977Vale v. Louisiana (1970), 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S. Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 ; State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 .” (Emphasis added).	2	1974–1977
Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., LP green ind · 1995 1 sentence 2020Bagley, 658 N.E.2d at 586 (citing Perry v. N. Ind. Pub.	1	2020–2020
Johnson v. Johnson green indctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2017Juatrice claims that none of the exceptions to the general rule are applicable and relies on Johnson v. Johnson, 653 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). 2017In particular, she notes a portion of the opinion stating, “We believe that the legislature did not intend for trial courts to retain jurisdiction over dissolution actions following the death of one of the parties for the purpose of resolving property matters between the parties and their successors in interest.” Id. at 516 .	1	2017–2017
Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. Purvis green indctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2008The plaintiff sought to impose liability on Red Roof by means of one of the exceptions to the general rule that a principal is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor; that exception being “where the act to be performed will probably cause injury to others unless due precaution is taken.” 691 N.E.2d at 1344 . 2008We held that "[t]he nature of the roofing project in this case did not create the type of danger so as to create a non-delegable duty in Red Roof on the basis that the act to be performed would probably cause harm to others.” Id. at 1347 .	1	2008–2008
Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Department green ind · 2007 1 sentence 2008Id.	1	2008–2008
Moberly v. Day green ind · 2001 1 sentence 2008In applying the ten-factor analysis set forth by our Supreme Court in Moberly v. Day, 757 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind.2001), to determine whether an individual should be treated as an independent contractor or an employee, we concluded that the trial court properly determined that Martin was operating the truck as an independent contractor.	1	2008–2008
Lannan v. State green ind · 1992 1 sentence 1999While the above rule was announced prior to our adoption of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) in Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind.1992), this court has recently observed that a defendant who raised the defense of entrapment had affirmatively asserted a claim of contrary intent which triggered the exception to Evid.	1	1999–1999
Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc. green ind · 1994 1 sentence 1996Reed & Sons, Inc. (1994), Ind., 638 N.E.2d 1228 , were applicable to the present case.	1	1996–1996
Byrd v. State green ind · 1992 1 sentence 1994See Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 128 ; Byrd v. State (1992), Ind., 593 N.E.2d 1183, 1184-85 ; Penley, 506 N.E.2d at 808 . [6] *579 One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character at issue by raising the defense of entrapment.	1	1994–1994
Penley v. State green ind · 1987 1 sentence 1994See Hardin, 611 N.E.2d at 128 ; Byrd v. State (1992), Ind., 593 N.E.2d 1183, 1184-85 ; Penley, 506 N.E.2d at 808 . [6] *579 One of the exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of character evidence, including evidence of prior bad acts, arose when a defendant specifically placed character at issue by raising the defense of entrapment.	1	1994–1994
Kerlin v. State green ind · 1970 2 sentences 1993Sink is consistent with language adopted by the Supreme Court in Lanzan from the dissenting opinion in Kerlin v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 420 , 265 N.E.2d 22 . 1993Sink is consistent with language adopted by the Supreme Court in Lanzan from the dissenting opinion in Kerlin v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 420 , 265 N.E.2d 22 .	1	1993–1993
Tata v. State green ind · 1986 2 sentences 1988Tata v. State (1986), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 1025 . 1988Tata v. State (1986), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 1025 .	1	1988–1988
Agnello v. United States green scotus · 1925 2 sentences 1977And such searches are held unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause.’ Agnello v. United States (1925), 269 U.S. 20, 33 , 46 S.Ct. 4, 6 , 70 L.Ed. 145 .” 430 Ludlow also reaffirmed the principle that the State has the burden of establishing a warrantless seizure to have been conducted legally: “Since it was conceded here that the search and seizure of the drugs was conducted without a search warrant, the burden rested with the State to demonstrate that the police action fell within one of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant. 1977And such searches are held unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause.’ Agnello v. United States (1925), 269 U.S. 20, 33 , 46 S.Ct. 4, 6 , 70 L.Ed. 145 .” 430 Ludlow also reaffirmed the principle that the State has the burden of establishing a warrantless seizure to have been conducted legally: “Since it was conceded here that the search and seizure of the drugs was conducted without a search warrant, the burden rested with the State to demonstrate that the police action fell within one of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant.	1	1977–1977
Meeks v. State green ind · 1968 2 sentences 1975In Ward v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 374, 384 , 205 N.E.2d 148, 154 , the Supreme Court was able to state that “. . . the law is well settled that evidence regarding other sex offenses similar to that charged is admissible.” Abruptly, in Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659 , 234 N.E.2d 629 , the court declared that Larmar, supra, proceeded too far and did not fit within any of the exceptions to the general rule excluding prior offenses. 1975In Ward v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 374, 384 , 205 N.E.2d 148, 154 , the Supreme Court was able to state that “. . . the law is well settled that evidence regarding other sex offenses similar to that charged is admissible.” Abruptly, in Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659 , 234 N.E.2d 629 , the court declared that Larmar, supra, proceeded too far and did not fit within any of the exceptions to the general rule excluding prior offenses.	1	1975–1975
Ward v. State green ind · 1965 2 sentences 1975In Ward v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 374, 384 , 205 N.E.2d 148, 154 , the Supreme Court was able to state that “. . . the law is well settled that evidence regarding other sex offenses similar to that charged is admissible.” Abruptly, in Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659 , 234 N.E.2d 629 , the court declared that Larmar, supra, proceeded too far and did not fit within any of the exceptions to the general rule excluding prior offenses. 1975In Ward v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 374, 384 , 205 N.E.2d 148, 154 , the Supreme Court was able to state that “. . . the law is well settled that evidence regarding other sex offenses similar to that charged is admissible.” Abruptly, in Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659 , 234 N.E.2d 629 , the court declared that Larmar, supra, proceeded too far and did not fit within any of the exceptions to the general rule excluding prior offenses.	1	1975–1975
Sears v. Carpenter green ind · 1905 1 sentence 1971Freeman (1905), 165 Ind. 369 , 74 N. E. 244 . “. . .	1	1971–1971
Evans v. State ex rel. Freeman green ind · 1905 1 sentence 1971Freeman (1905), 165 Ind. 369 , 74 N. E. 244 . “. . .	1	1971–1971
Loveless v. State green ind · 1960 2 sentences 1967Among these are cases where a crime has certain peculiar characteristics connected with its commission so that it very reasonably identifies the person involved in the commission. . . .” Quoting with authority from Loveless v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 534 , 166 N. E. 2d 864 . 268 The opinion concludes by stating that since these other crimes only show that the appellant previously committed armed robbery and are void of peculiar characteristics connected with the crime at issue, they do not fit into any one of the exceptions to the general rule. 1967Among these are cases where a crime has certain peculiar characteristics connected with its commission so that it very reasonably identifies the person involved in the commission. . . .” Quoting with authority from Loveless v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 534 , 166 N. E. 2d 864 . 268 The opinion concludes by stating that since these other crimes only show that the appellant previously committed armed robbery and are void of peculiar characteristics connected with the crime at issue, they do not fit into any one of the exceptions to the general rule.	1	1967–1967
Helwig v. Jordan green ind · 1876 1 sentence 1955In Helwig v. Jordan (1876), 53 Ind. 21 , the court adopted the following declaration in 1 Wilson Superior Court Rep. 447: “One who erects a nuisance and after-wards . . . leases his real estate, receiving rent therefor and knowing, or having reason to believe, that the use of the property for the purpose for which it is leased will prove to be injurious to the property of others, or become a nuisance, will be liable to an action for an injury resulting therefrom.” The admission made in Deller v. Hofferberth (1891), 127 Ind. 414 , 26 N. E. 889 , serves to further reveal the line of the court’s	1	1955–1955
Deller v. Hofferberth neutral ind · 1891 2 sentences 1955In Helwig v. Jordan (1876), 53 Ind. 21 , the court adopted the following declaration in 1 Wilson Superior Court Rep. 447: “One who erects a nuisance and after-wards . . . leases his real estate, receiving rent therefor and knowing, or having reason to believe, that the use of the property for the purpose for which it is leased will prove to be injurious to the property of others, or become a nuisance, will be liable to an action for an injury resulting therefrom.” The admission made in Deller v. Hofferberth (1891), 127 Ind. 414 , 26 N. E. 889 , serves to further reveal the line of the court’s 1955In Helwig v. Jordan (1876), 53 Ind. 21 , the court adopted the following declaration in 1 Wilson Superior Court Rep. 447: “One who erects a nuisance and after-wards . . . leases his real estate, receiving rent therefor and knowing, or having reason to believe, that the use of the property for the purpose for which it is leased will prove to be injurious to the property of others, or become a nuisance, will be liable to an action for an injury resulting therefrom.” The admission made in Deller v. Hofferberth (1891), 127 Ind. 414 , 26 N. E. 889 , serves to further reveal the line of the court’s	1	1955–1955
Zimmerman v. State neutral ind · 1921	1	1939–1939
Little v. Koerner neutral indctapp · 1902	1	1914–1914
Kerstetter v. Raymond green ind · 1858	1	1911–1911
Board of Commissioners v. Gibson green ind · 1902	1	1911–1911
Dobbins v. McNamara green ind · 1888	1	1892–1892
Reno v. Tyson green ind · 1865	1	1889–1889
Hough v. Railway Co. green · 1880	1	1885–1885
Indiana Car Co. v. Parker green ind · 1885	1	1885–1885

Where else courts name it

NY 92 (1863–2026) TX 72 (1881–2025) CA 57 (1865–2025) NC 49 (1899–2026) PA 44 (1865–2025) AL 40 (1886–2025) MO 36 (1891–2025) GA 35 (1900–2017) IL 30 (1881–2022) VA 30 (1928–2026) KS 28 (1896–2026) IN 28 (1885–2020) OK 26 (1921–2023) MD 25 (1850–2024) NV 19 (1934–2022) KY 17 (1909–2024) WI 16 (1883–2025) IA 16 (1899–1984) MI 16 (1931–2022) LA 16 (1903–2023) FL 15 (1914–2017) WA 15 (1917–2018) CO 15 (1918–2025) OR 12 (1887–2020) CT 12 (1899–2025) UT 11 (1906–2020) AZ 10 (1955–2011) TN 10 (1928–2017) NJ 10 (1896–2025) ID 9 (1905–2009) OH 9 (1929–2025) WV 8 (1908–2022) MN 8 (1909–2011) MA 8 (1878–2021) NE 8 (1888–1979) MS 7 (1924–2021) AR 7 (1914–1963) NM 6 (1902–1992) MT 6 (1981–2015) SC 5 (1925–2023) SD 5 (1912–1993) VT 4 (1879–2025) DE 3 (1913–2019) RI 2 (1978–1981) AK 2 (1979–2026) ME 2 (1984–2001) PR 2 (1907–1932)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check