26 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boesch v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“When determining whether a defendant suffered a due process violation based on an incorrect jury instruction, we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation, but in the context of all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument, and other instructions.” Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind. 2002) (internal citations omitted). 2019"When determining whether a defendant suffered a due process violation based on an incorrect jury instruction, we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation, but in the context of all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument, and other instructions." Boesch v. State , 778 N.E.2d 1276 , 1279 (Ind. 2002) (internal citations omitted). | 10 | 16 |
Isom v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In a more recent opinion from our Supreme Court on this topic, the court stated as follows: When determining whether a defendant suffered a due process violation based on an incorrect jury instruction, we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation, but in the context of all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument, Isom, 651 N.E.2d at 1153 , and other instructions, id.; Bane, 587 N.E.2d at 101 . 2002When determining whether a defendant suffered a due process violation based on an incorrect jury instruction, we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation, but in the context of all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument, Isom, 651 N.E.2d at 1153 , and other instructions, id.; Bane, 587 N.E.2d at 101 . | 1 | 3 |
Bruce Ryan v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Dearman v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“Sudden heat” is “characterized as anger, rage, resentment, or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, preventing deliberation and premeditation, excluding malice, and rendering a person incapable of cool reflection.” Dearman v. State, 743 N.E.2d 757, 760 (Ind. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bane v. State
green
2 sentences2006In a more recent opinion from our Supreme Court on this topic, the court stated as follows: When determining whether a defendant suffered a due process violation based on an incorrect jury instruction, we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation, but in the context of all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument, Isom, 651 N.E.2d at 1153 , and other instructions, id.; Bane, 587 N.E.2d at 101 . 2002When determining whether a defendant suffered a due process violation based on an incorrect jury instruction, we look not to the erroneous instruction in isolation, but in the context of all relevant information given to the jury, including closing argument, Isom, 651 N.E.2d at 1153 , and other instructions, id.; Bane, 587 N.E.2d at 101 . | 2 | 2002–2006 |
Mundy v. State
neutral
2 sentences2019The trial court properly instructed the jury that it was the judge of the facts and the law and set forth the standards by which the jury would determine whether Thrasher was guilty or not guilty. [32] Thrasher, citing Mundy v. State, 247 Ind. 224 , 214 N.E.2d 389 (1966), claims that an incorrect jury instruction cannot be remedied by other instructions. 2019The trial court properly instructed the jury that it was the judge of the facts and the law and set forth the standards by which the jury would determine whether Thrasher was guilty or not guilty. [32] Thrasher, citing Mundy v. State, 247 Ind. 224 , 214 N.E.2d 389 (1966), claims that an incorrect jury instruction cannot be remedied by other instructions. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Henderson v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gill v. State
green
1 sentence2014“A defendant must identify specific grounds in support of an objection to an incorrect jury instruction, particularly where the trial court focuses its attention on the language of a misleading or incomplete proposed instruction.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Helsley v. State
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Luna v. State
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Scisney v. State
green
1 sentence2001We have stated that counsel's providing "specific grounds in support of an objection to an incorrect jury instruction upon a relevant issue .... will usually be necessary to inform the trial and appellate courts. [And] is particularly appropriate when a trial objection focuses upon the language of a proposed instruction (e.g., when the objection alleges that an instruction is confusing, misleading, or incomplete)" Id. at 848-49 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.