23 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barany v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ind. 1995) (“We have repeatedly held that the intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon; the nature, duration, or brutality of the attack; and the circumstances surrounding the crime.”). 12 Furthermore, the given instruction was supported by the following evidence: (1) Birk pulled out his gun, cocked it, and pointed it at Reynolds; 13 (2) firing Birk’s weapon required 5.25 pounds of pressure on the trigger; 14 (3) Birk said “I should shoot you” to Reynolds right before doing so;15 and (4) Birk shot Reynolds in the face from close ran 2023See Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ind. 1995) (“We have repeatedly held that the intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon; the nature, duration, or brutality of the attack; and the circumstances surrounding the crime.”). 12 Furthermore, the given instruction was supported by the following evidence: (1) Birk pulled out his gun, cocked it, and pointed it at Reynolds; 13 (2) firing Birk’s weapon required 5.25 pounds of pressure on the trigger; 14 (3) Birk said “I should shoot you” to Reynolds right before doing so;15 and (4) Birk shot Reynolds in the face from close ran | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See McCarthy v. State, 751 N.E.2d 753, 755 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) ("[S]o long as the jury hears the instructions on the proper state of the law, whether it hears the instructions before or after the evidence is presented is of no relevance."), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Turner v. State, 755 N.E.2d 194, 199 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (noting that "while a defendant's presence during or failure to oppose the crime are, by themselves, insufficient to establish accomplice lability, they may be considered along with defendant's relation to or companionship with the others and defendant's actions before, during and after the crime"), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See Cooley v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1277, 1281 (Ind.1997) (discussion of reasons for replacing rule of Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975), with that of Evid.R. 801(d) and Modesitt). 1997See Cooley v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1277, 1281 (Ind.1997) (discussion of reasons for replacing rule of Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975), with that of Evid.R. 801(d) and Modesitt). | 1 | 1 |
Cooley v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Cooley v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1277, 1281 (Ind.1997) (discussion of reasons for replacing rule of Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975), with that of Evid.R. 801(d) and Modesitt). | 1 | 1 |
Reinbold v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Ives v. Stategreen1 sentence1984See Ives v. State, (1981) Ind., 418 N.E.2d 220 ; Lottie v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 632 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bourasgreen1 sentence1981In the recent case of State v. Bouras, (1981) Ind.App., 423 N.E.2d 741, 744 (transfer pending) the court stated the following concerning refusal of instructions: “Giving instructions is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and its refusal to give a tendered instruction is grounds for reversal only if the substance of the instruction was required to be given and was not adequately covered by other instructions given by the court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences1981Dahlberg 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 | 2 | 1981–1990 |
Peterson v. State
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 707 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Blocher v. DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence2013But the case cited in support of the tendered instruction, Miller v. State, 770 N.E.2d 763 (Ind.2002), did not even involve the issue of how to instruct the jury; it simply listed factors a trial court should consider in deciding whether to admit a defendant’s statement. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Spradlin v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 951 . 2008Id. at 951 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Majors v. State
green
1 sentence2000“Fundamental error is error that, if no.t corrected, would deny a defendant fundamental due process.” Majors v. State (2000) Ind.App., 735 N.E.2d 334, 338 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Modesitt v. State
green
1 sentence1997(R. at 223.) The given instruction is a verbatim recitation of Indiana Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 12.19, which was superseded by Evid.R. 801(d) and Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fleenor v. State
green
1 sentence1995Fleenor, supra. Because counsel's failure to raise harmless error cannot be considered prejudicial, it does not support a finding of ineffectiveness of counsel. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hauck v. Second National Bank of Richmond
green
1 sentence1995In other words, "[ulnless the court can say from a consideration of the entire instrument that a given clause is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible even to explain the instrument's meaning." Id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Light v. State
green
1 sentence1994Light v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1073 ; Kiper v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1353 ; Burgess v. State (1983), Ind., 444 N.E.2d 1193 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kiper v. State
green
1 sentence1994Light v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1073 ; Kiper v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1353 ; Burgess v. State (1983), Ind., 444 N.E.2d 1193 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Burgess v. State
green
1 sentence1994Light v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 1073 ; Kiper v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1353 ; Burgess v. State (1983), Ind., 444 N.E.2d 1193 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Lincoln Operating Co. v. Gillis
green
2 sentences1993Lincoln Operating Co. v. Gillis (1953) 232 Ind. 551 , 114 N.E.2d 873 . 1993Lincoln Operating Co. v. Gillis (1953) 232 Ind. 551 , 114 N.E.2d 873 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Santana v. State
red
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sims v. State
neutral
1 sentence1991The State acknowledges the existence of Sims v. State (1985), Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d 1182 , reh'g denied, 489 N.E.2d 957 , trans. denied (stating objecting to a given instruction is necessary and sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal; tendering of a written instruction is a prerequisite to an appellant's allegation of error based on refusal to give a requested instruction). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Sims v. State
neutral
1 sentence1991The State acknowledges the existence of Sims v. State (1985), Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d 1182 , reh'g denied, 489 N.E.2d 957 , trans. denied (stating objecting to a given instruction is necessary and sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal; tendering of a written instruction is a prerequisite to an appellant's allegation of error based on refusal to give a requested instruction). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lottie v. State
green
1 sentence1984See Ives v. State, (1981) Ind., 418 N.E.2d 220 ; Lottie v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 632 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
School City of Gary v. Claudio
green
1 sentence1981Dahlberg 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 | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Jackman v. Montgomery green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Friendship Farms Camps, Inc. v. Parson green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O'NEILL
green
2 sentences1981Friendship Farms Camps, Inc. v. Parson, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 73, 79 , 359 N.E.2d 280 ; Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O’Neill, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 466, 480 , 324 N.E.2d 846 ; Davoust v. Mitchell, (1970) 146 Ind.App. 536, 543 , 257 N.E.2d 332 ; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 1981Friendship Farms Camps, Inc. v. Parson, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 73, 79 , 359 N.E.2d 280 ; Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O’Neill, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 466, 480 , 324 N.E.2d 846 ; Davoust v. Mitchell, (1970) 146 Ind.App. 536, 543 , 257 N.E.2d 332 ; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Dahlberg v. Ogle
green
2 sentences1981Dahlberg 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 | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Davoust v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1981Friendship Farms Camps, Inc. v. Parson, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 73, 79 , 359 N.E.2d 280 ; Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O’Neill, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 466, 480 , 324 N.E.2d 846 ; Davoust v. Mitchell, (1970) 146 Ind.App. 536, 543 , 257 N.E.2d 332 ; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 1981Friendship Farms Camps, Inc. v. Parson, (1977) 172 Ind.App. 73, 79 , 359 N.E.2d 280 ; Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O’Neill, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 466, 480 , 324 N.E.2d 846 ; Davoust v. Mitchell, (1970) 146 Ind.App. 536, 543 , 257 N.E.2d 332 ; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Company
green
2 sentences1981Dahlberg 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 | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Muncy v. Magnolia Chemical Company green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Ashton v. Anderson green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Whelchel v. Barton neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Pawlisch v. Atkins red | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.