17 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tolliver v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided .by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability”’), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception,, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [23] This does not end our an 2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability ”), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [24] This does not end our anal | 2 | 2 |
Camm v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability ”), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [24] This does not end our anal 2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided .by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability”’), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception,, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [23] This does not end our an | 2 | 2 |
Stevens v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Even if we determine that counsel’s choice of 12 issues was not reasonable, “a petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal would have been different in order to prevail.” Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 760 (Ind. 2002), reh’g denied. 2006Even if we determine that counsel's choice of issues was not reasonable, "a petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of the direct appeal would have been different in order to prevail." Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 760 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied. | 2 | 2 |
Mark Clarke v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2016See Clarke, 974 N.E.2d at 566 . [10] The State’s evidence against Carreno developed when an Indiana State Police officer responded to a report of a single-vehicle crash. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2015But this does not end our inquiry, as “certain constitutional errors, no less than other errors, may have been ‘harmless’ in terms of their effect on the fact-finding process at trial.” Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ind.2010). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error may be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 12 In other words, “[violations of the right of cross-examination do not require reversal if the State can show beyond a reasona 2015But this does not end our inquiry, as “certain constitutional errors, no less than other errors, may have been ‘harmless’ in terms of their effect on the fact-finding process at trial.” Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ind.2010). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error may be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 12 In other words, “[violations of the right of cross-examination do not require reversal if the State can show beyond a reasona | 1 | 1 |
Koenig v. Stategreen2 sentences2015But this does not end our inquiry, as “certain constitutional errors, no less than other errors, may have been ‘harmless’ in terms of their effect on the fact-finding process at trial.” Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ind.2010). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error may be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 12 In other words, “[violations of the right of cross-examination do not require reversal if the State can show beyond a reasona 2015But this does not end our inquiry, as “certain constitutional errors, no less than other errors, may have been ‘harmless’ in terms of their effect on the fact-finding process at trial.” Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ind.2010). “[B]efore a federal constitutional error may be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 12 In other words, “[violations of the right of cross-examination do not require reversal if the State can show beyond a reasona | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2013For while we conclude there was sufficient evidence to sustain Battle’s convictions, we are also required to raise sua sponte the question of double jeopardy “because a double jeopardy violation, if shown, implicates fundamental rights.” Smith v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1040, 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“When a statement has been excluded from evidence that was not in fact hearsay, this Court will review the trial court’s decision under a harmless error analysis.” Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 704 (Ind.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Evergreen Healthcare, Inc.green1 sentence2006Foster v. Evergreen Healthcare, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 19, 24 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jervis v. State
green
2 sentences2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided .by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability”’), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception,, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [23] This does not end our an 2015See Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215, 233 (Ind.2009) (noting that the hearsay exception provided by Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was not available because none of the statements seeking to be admitted “constituted ‘an admission of a crime’ or ‘tended to subject [the declarant] to criminal liability ”), reh’g denied; Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1280 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )), trans. denied. [24] This does not end our anal | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2015We therefore conclude it was an abuse of the court’s discretion to exclude Jackson’s testimony. [29] This does not end our analysis, however. “[W]e will find an error in the exclusion of evidence harmless if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” Farris, 818 N.E.2d at 70 (quoting Williams, 714 N.E.2d at 652 ). 2004Although we find that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing Meeks to testify, this does not end our analysis. "[We will find an error in the exclusion of evidence harmless if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the defendant's substantial rights." Williams, 714 N.E.2d at 652 . | 2 | 2004–2015 |
Farris v. State
green
1 sentence2015We therefore conclude it was an abuse of the court’s discretion to exclude Jackson’s testimony. [29] This does not end our analysis, however. “[W]e will find an error in the exclusion of evidence harmless if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” Farris, 818 N.E.2d at 70 (quoting Williams, 714 N.E.2d at 652 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Demetrio J. Hernandez and Wayne Parrish
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Twyman v. State
green
1 sentence2001Twyman v. State, 459 N.E.2d 705, 712 , (Ind.1984). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ross v. State
green
1 sentence1997This is impermissible, Ross, 516 N.E.2d at 63 , and the testimony should have been excluded. *347 However, this does not end our analysis. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Buie v. State
green
1 sentence1996Buie, 633 N.E.2d at 260 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. at 516-17 . 1996Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 , 88 S.Ct. at 516-17 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Joe A. Corbin and Marta C. Corbin v. Coleco Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, interpreting Indiana law in Corbin, supra, reasoned: "Whether a danger is open and obvious depends not just on what people can see with their eyes but also on what they know and believe about what they see. 1988The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, interpreting Indiana law in Corbin, supra, reasoned: "Whether a danger is open and obvious depends not just on what people can see with their eyes but also on what they know and believe about what they see. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.