omission instruction in Indiana

21 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1892–2019 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
Helton v. Stategreen ind · 1980 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2019 2 sentences 2019To be sure, our Supreme Court stated in Helton v. State, 273 Ind. 211, 213 , 402 N.E.2d 1263, 1266 (1980) that “the entitlement to included offenses instructions, in an appropriate case, is not a fundamental right but rather is one that must be claimed and the claim preserved, in accordance with established rules of trial and appellate procedure.” The omission of an instruction on the lesser-included offense of conversion did not constitute fundamental error. [32] Walker attempts to distinguish his case from Lane, arguing that here, “there was no possible strategic reason not to seek instructi 2019To be sure, our Supreme Court stated in Helton v. State, 273 Ind. 211, 213 , 402 N.E.2d 1263, 1266 (1980) that “the entitlement to included offenses instructions, in an appropriate case, is not a fundamental right but rather is one that must be claimed and the claim preserved, in accordance with established rules of trial and appellate procedure.” The omission of an instruction on the lesser-included offense of conversion did not constitute fundamental error. [32] Walker attempts to distinguish his case from Lane, arguing that here, “there was no possible strategic reason not to seek instructi	2	2
Ritchie v. Stategreen ind · 2004 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2017 2 sentences 2017We rejected this precise argument in Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 487-88 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1161 , 194 L.Ed.2d 175 (2016), 11 and before that Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 266 (Ind. 2004) (noting the Court had previously 169 concluded “as a matter of state law, that the determination of the weight to be accorded the aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not a ‘fact’ which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but is a balancing process” (alteration and quotation omitted)); see also State v. Barker, 809 N.E.2d 812 , 815 (Ind. 2004) (declaring, “[bjecau 2004*Ritchie, 809 N.E.2d at 268 , 2004 WL 11583062 .	1	2
Brown v. Stategreen ind · 1998 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Brown v. State, 691 N.E.2d 438, 444 (Ind. 1998).	1	1
White v. Stategreen ind · 1997 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017White v. State, 687 N.E.2d 178, 179 (Ind. 1997); see also Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 375 (Ind. 2002) (claim of failure to instruct jury on territorial jurisdiction waived because defendant failed to tender proposed instruction). [27] Rolling concedes he did not give the trial court a proposed written instruction on lesser included offenses.	1	1
Ortiz v. Stategreen ind · 2002 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017White v. State, 687 N.E.2d 178, 179 (Ind. 1997); see also Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370, 375 (Ind. 2002) (claim of failure to instruct jury on territorial jurisdiction waived because defendant failed to tender proposed instruction). [27] Rolling concedes he did not give the trial court a proposed written instruction on lesser included offenses.	1	1
Kevin Charles Isom v. State of Indianagreen ind · 2015 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017We rejected this precise argument in Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 487-88 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1161 , 194 L.Ed.2d 175 (2016), 11 and before that Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 266 (Ind. 2004) (noting the Court had previously *169 concluded “as a matter of state law, that the determination of the weight to be accorded the aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not a ‘fact’ which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but is a balancing process” (alteration and quotation omitted)); see also State v. Barker, 809 N.E.2d 812 , 815 (Ind. 2004) (declaring, “[bjecau	1	1
Phillips v. Stategreen ind · 1990 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001In Phillips v. State, 550 N.E.2d 1290, 1296 (Ind.1990), our supreme court addressed the refusal of a trial court to give certain self-defense instructions as preliminary instructions, instead choosing to give them as final instructions: The omission of an instruction which could appropriately have been given preliminarily can be rectified in the final instructions.	1	1
Abercrombie v. Stategreen ind · 1985 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 1 sentence 1996Abercrombie v. State, 478 N.E.2d 1236, 1239 (Ind.1985).	1	1
Elliott v. Stategreen indctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See Elliott v. State (1983), Ind.App., 450 N.E.2d 1058 .	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 (23)

Case	Cited	Years
Smith v. State neutral ind · 1981 2 sentences 2001Smith v. State (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1225 ; Everly v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 687 , 395 N.E.2d 254 , and this Court has noted that where the jury has been fully instructed on all the issues, the order in which it hears the instructions and the evidence provides no basis for a claim of error. 1990Smith v. State (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1225 ; Everly v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 687 , 395 N.E.2d 254 , and this Court has noted that where the jury has been fully instructed on all the issues, the order in which it hears the instructions and the evidence provides no basis for a claim of error.	2	1990–2001
Everly v. State green ind · 1979 2 sentences 2001Smith v. State (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1225 ; Everly v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 687 , 395 N.E.2d 254 , and this Court has noted that where the jury has been fully instructed on all the issues, the order in which it hears the instructions and the evidence provides no basis for a claim of error. 2001Smith v. State (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1225 ; Everly v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 687 , 395 N.E.2d 254 , and this Court has noted that where the jury has been fully instructed on all the issues, the order in which it hears the instructions and the evidence provides no basis for a claim of error.	2	1990–2001
Franklin v. State green ind · 1999 1 sentence 2019Franklin v. State , 715 N.E.2d 1237 , 1241 (Ind. 1999).	1	2019–2019
Hurst v. Florida green scotus · 2016 2 sentences 2017Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). 2017Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016).	1	2017–2017
Mitchell v. United States green scotus · 2016 1 sentence 2017We rejected this precise argument in Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 487-88 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1161 , 194 L.Ed.2d 175 (2016), 11 and before that Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 266 (Ind. 2004) (noting the Court had previously *169 concluded “as a matter of state law, that the determination of the weight to be accorded the aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not a ‘fact’ which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but is a balancing process” (alteration and quotation omitted)); see also State v. Barker, 809 N.E.2d 812 , 815 (Ind. 2004) (declaring, “[bjecau	1	2017–2017
Isom v. Indiana green scotus · 2016 1 sentence 2017We rejected this precise argument in Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 487-88 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1161 , 194 L.Ed.2d 175 (2016), 11 and before that Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 266 (Ind. 2004) (noting the Court had previously *169 concluded “as a matter of state law, that the determination of the weight to be accorded the aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not a ‘fact’ which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but is a balancing process” (alteration and quotation omitted)); see also State v. Barker, 809 N.E.2d 812 , 815 (Ind. 2004) (declaring, “[bjecau	1	2017–2017
Redmond v. United Airlines, Inc. green indctapp · 1975 2 sentences 2013Id. at 399-400 , 332 N.E.2d at 806-807 . 2013Id. at 399-400 , 332 N.E.2d at 806-807 .	1	2013–2013
Mid State Bank v. 84 Lumber Co. green indctapp · 1994 1 sentence 2004See In re the Paternity of Baby W, 774 N.E.24 570, 575 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); Mid State Bank v. 84 Lumber Co., 629 N.E.2d 909 , 911 a. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). 2 .	1	2004–2004
Jenkins v. State green ind · 1981 1 sentence 1995As noted in Jenkins, it is only "when the jury question coincides with an error or legal lacuna in the final instructions that a response other than rereading from the body of final instructions is permissible." 424 N.E.2d at 1003 .	1	1995–1995
Norris v. State green ind · 1986 1 sentence 1992Norris v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1203 .	1	1992–1992
Birkla v. State green ind · 1975 2 sentences 1975Nevertheless, such inadvertence does not change the effect the omitted evidence may have had upon the jury’s consideration in the conviction of the appellant. “[W]hen the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a co-conspirator to obtain conviction of the accused, the co-conspirator’s credibility is an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement as to future prosecution of the co-conspirator must be disclosed to the jury.” Birkla v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 37 , 323 N.E.2d 645 at 648 . 1975Nevertheless, such inadvertence does not change the effect the omitted evidence may have had upon the jury’s consideration in the conviction of the appellant. “[W]hen the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a co-conspirator to obtain conviction of the accused, the co-conspirator’s credibility is an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement as to future prosecution of the co-conspirator must be disclosed to the jury.” Birkla v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 37 , 323 N.E.2d 645 at 648 .	1	1975–1975
cluster 250010 green cadc · 1959 1 sentence 1964Pee v. United States (C.A.D.C. 1959), 274 F.2d 556, 559 .	1	1964–1964
Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer neutral indctapp · 1936 2 sentences 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 . 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 .	1	1947–1947
Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Mathews green ind · 1912 2 sentences 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 . 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 .	1	1947–1947
Fox v. Barekman neutral ind · 1912 2 sentences 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 . 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 .	1	1947–1947
American Sheet & Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy green indctapp · 1909 2 sentences 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 . 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 .	1	1947–1947
Union Traction Co. v. Elmore neutral indctapp · 1917 2 sentences 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 . 1947Fox v. Barekman (1912), 178 Ind. 572, 580 , 99 N. E. 989 ; Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Mathews (1912), 177 Ind. 88, 105 , 97 N. E. 320 ; American, etc., Tin Plate Co. v. Bucy (1909), 43 Ind. App. 501, 504 , 87 N. E. 1051 ; Union Traction Co. v. Elmore (1917), 66 Ind. App. 95, 98 , 116 N. E. 837 ; Indiana Service Corp. v. Schaefer (1936), 101 Ind. App. 294, 300 , 199 N. E. 158 .	1	1947–1947
Lays v. Hurley neutral mass · 1913 2 sentences 1917Adams v. Buhler (1892), 131 Ind. 66 , 30 N. E. 883 ; Lays v. Hurley (1913), 215 Mass. 582 , 103 N. E. 52 ; Peck v. Hensley (1863), 21 Ind. 344 ; Farmers Loan, etc., Co. v. Canada, etc., R. 1917Adams v. Buhler (1892), 131 Ind. 66 , 30 N. E. 883 ; Lays v. Hurley (1913), 215 Mass. 582 , 103 N. E. 52 ; Peck v. Hensley (1863), 21 Ind. 344 ; Farmers Loan, etc., Co. v. Canada, etc., R.	1	1917–1917
Peck v. Hensley neutral ind · 1863	1	1917–1917
Adams v. Buhler green ind · 1892 2 sentences 1917Adams v. Buhler (1892), 131 Ind. 66 , 30 N. E. 883 ; Lays v. Hurley (1913), 215 Mass. 582 , 103 N. E. 52 ; Peck v. Hensley (1863), 21 Ind. 344 ; Farmers Loan, etc., Co. v. Canada, etc., R. 1917Adams v. Buhler (1892), 131 Ind. 66 , 30 N. E. 883 ; Lays v. Hurley (1913), 215 Mass. 582 , 103 N. E. 52 ; Peck v. Hensley (1863), 21 Ind. 344 ; Farmers Loan, etc., Co. v. Canada, etc., R.	1	1917–1917
Knoefel v. Atkins neutral indctapp · 1907 2 sentences 1917Knoefel v. Atkins (1907), 40 Ind. App. 428 , 81 N. E. 600 ; Neely v. Louisville, etc., Traction Co. (1913), 53 Ind. App. 659 , 102 N. E. 455 ; Indianapolis Union R. 1917Knoefel v. Atkins (1907), 40 Ind. App. 428 , 81 N. E. 600 ; Neely v. Louisville, etc., Traction Co. (1913), 53 Ind. App. 659 , 102 N. E. 455 ; Indianapolis Union R.	1	1917–1917
Neely v. Louisville & Southern Indiana Traction Co. neutral indctapp · 1913 2 sentences 1917Knoefel v. Atkins (1907), 40 Ind. App. 428 , 81 N. E. 600 ; Neely v. Louisville, etc., Traction Co. (1913), 53 Ind. App. 659 , 102 N. E. 455 ; Indianapolis Union R. 1917Knoefel v. Atkins (1907), 40 Ind. App. 428 , 81 N. E. 600 ; Neely v. Louisville, etc., Traction Co. (1913), 53 Ind. App. 659 , 102 N. E. 455 ; Indianapolis Union R.	1	1917–1917
Anderson v. Lane neutral mont · 1869	1	1892–1892

Where else courts name it

TX 294 (1896–2026) CA 136 (1888–2026) IL 54 (1885–2026) MI 53 (1886–2023) PA 44 (1871–2025) FL 44 (1892–2025) GA 43 (1895–2026) MA 41 (1825–2026) NY 38 (1887–2024) WA 32 (1927–2025) MO 30 (1888–2017) NC 27 (1888–2024) LA 26 (1927–2026) TN 26 (1917–2018) CT 25 (1927–2026) IN 21 (1892–2019) OH 20 (1886–2025) KS 20 (1884–2024) NJ 19 (1990–2024) OK 17 (1909–2018) KY 16 (1906–2021) AL 15 (1905–2023) DC 13 (1885–2026) AZ 12 (1989–2024) MS 10 (1979–2025) MN 10 (1932–2016) OR 9 (1915–2022) ID 9 (1977–2024) ND 8 (1957–2025) MT 8 (1906–2005) MD 7 (1910–2020) NM 7 (1972–2020) VT 6 (1929–2025) WI 5 (1979–2017) NV 5 (1950–2021) ME 5 (1975–2014) HI 5 (2002–2020) IA 5 (1899–2015) AK 4 (1974–2012) UT 4 (1983–2021) SD 4 (1894–1947) SC 3 (1964–2016) PR 3 (1933–1967) DE 2 (1971–2023) CO 2 (1933–1989) WY 2 (1988–2018) NH 2 (1986–2018) WV 2 (1917–2001) AR 2 (1914–2016)

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