18 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Winston v. Stategreen2 sentences1988The "fundamental error" doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider the merits of an improperly raised error if the reviewing court finds that "the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant that he could not have had a fair trial." Winston v. State (1975), 165 Ind.App. 369 , 332 N.E.2d 229, 281 , trons. denied. 1988The "fundamental error" doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider the merits of an improperly raised error if the reviewing court finds that "the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant that he could not have had a fair trial." Winston v. State (1975), 165 Ind.App. 369 , 332 N.E.2d 229, 281 , trons. denied. | 2 | 9 |
Grier v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Because they failed to object, they now invoke the fundamental error doctrine, which permits a reviewing court to consider the merits of an improperly raised error if the reviewing court finds that “the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the appellant that he could not have had a fair trial.” Grier v. State, 240 N.E.2d 494, 496 (Ind. 1968). 1980This may be done, he states, if “the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant that he could not have had a fair trial.” Grier, supra, 240 N.E.2d at 496 . | 1 | 6 |
Johnson v. Waitgreen1 sentence2018“The Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JT-349 | July 16, 2018 Page 14 of 21 fundamental error doctrine is extremely narrow and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Johnson v. Wait, 947 N.E.2d 951, 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Elkins v. Marion County Office of Family & Childrengreen1 sentence2017Moreover, “[A] failure to provide services does not serve as a basis on which to directly attack a termination order[.]” In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d at 148 n.3 (citing In re E.E., 736 N.E.2d 791, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (any alleged noncompliance by DCS in provision of services “would be a matter separate and distinct from the operation of our termination statute”). [26] Our review of the record reveals no error in the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Children. | 1 | 1 |
Foresta v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Foresta, 274 Ind. at 660 , 413 N.E.2d at 890 (noting that “the record reveals that defense counsel failed to exhaust his peremptory challenges, and thus could have had this juror removed automatically through this Procedure”). 2000See Foresta, 274 Ind. at 660 , 413 N.E.2d at 890 (noting that “the record reveals that defense counsel failed to exhaust his peremptory challenges, and thus could have had this juror removed automatically through this Procedure”). | 1 | 1 |
Osborne v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Hill v. State, 442 N.E.2d 1049, 1054 (Ind.1982); see also Osborne v. State, 481 N.E.2d 376, 380 (Ind.1985) (observing that the nature and extent of cross-examination is a matter of strategy delegated to trial counsel). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Hill v. State, 442 N.E.2d 1049, 1054 (Ind.1982); see also Osborne v. State, 481 N.E.2d 376, 380 (Ind.1985) (observing that the nature and extent of cross-examination is a matter of strategy delegated to trial counsel). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c 1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c 1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c 1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re HL
green
1 sentence2017Moreover, “[A] failure to provide services does not serve as a basis on which to directly attack a termination order[.]” In re H.L., 915 N.E.2d at 148 n.3 (citing In re E.E., 736 N.E.2d 791, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (any alleged noncompliance by DCS in provision of services “would be a matter separate and distinct from the operation of our termination statute”). [26] Our review of the record reveals no error in the juvenile court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Children. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence1992Bailey quotes this court in Thomas v. State (1982), Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 700, 701 , where the court said: "'The 'fundamental error' doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider the merits of an improperly raised error if the reviewing court finds that 'the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant that he could not have had a fair trial! | 1 | 1992–1992 |
McNeal v. State
green
1 sentence1987Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(D); Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7); McNeal v. State (1982), Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 127, 128 , trans. denied. 3 Thus, appellant has waived any error which occurred below. 4 It could be argued that we should consider the exelusion of Rosas' testimony as "fundamental error." The "fundamental error" doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider the merits of an improperly raised error if the reviewing court finds that "the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant that he could not have had a fair trial." Winston, supr | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lacy v. State
green
1 sentence1983Our supreme court has also further defined fundamental error in a recent case: " 'To be categorized as fundamental error and thus to transcend our procedural requirements, the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." See also, Johnson v. State, (1979) Ind. [ 271 Ind. 145 ], 390 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 ([T]he error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of c | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Nelson v. State
green
1 sentence1980Nelson v. State, 409 N.E.2d 637 (1980) Ind., is instructive. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Walters v. State
green
1 sentence1980Walters, supra. The record reveals that the test sample was taken from the pile of plants confiscated by police from the field in Pulaski County. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Harshman v. State
green
2 sentences1973In Harshman v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 618 , 115 N.E.2d 501 , our Supreme Court held: “As we view it, a plea of guilty tendered by one who in the same breath protests his innocence, or declares he acutally does not know whether or not he is guilty, is no plea at all. 1973In Harshman v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 618 , 115 N.E.2d 501 , our Supreme Court held: “As we view it, a plea of guilty tendered by one who in the same breath protests his innocence, or declares he acutally does not know whether or not he is guilty, is no plea at all. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.