17 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scisney v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Perez v. State , 872 N.E.2d 208 , 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (ongoing hostilities between parties and use of a deadly weapon sufficient to prove Perez committed attempted murder when he fired shots at a car containing rival gang members), trans. denied . *1284 Jury Instruction Regarding Transferred Intent [13] To preserve a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction, trial counsel must timely object and clearly identify the "claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection." Scisney v. State , 701 N.E.2d 847 , 849 (Ind. 1998). 2016“Thus, at a minimum, ‘appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection,’ though tendering a proposed alternative instruction is recommended.” Id. (quoting Scisney, 701 N.E.2d at 849 ). [12] Watkins did not object to the instructions or tender a relevant jury instruction. | 7 | 8 |
William Bowman v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Moreover, it is well settled that “at a minimum, ‘appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection[.]’” Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1179 (Ind. 2016) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Perez v. State , 872 N.E.2d 208 , 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (ongoing hostilities between parties and use of a deadly weapon sufficient to prove Perez committed attempted murder when he fired shots at a car containing rival gang members), trans. denied . *1284 Jury Instruction Regarding Transferred Intent [13] To preserve a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction, trial counsel must timely object and clearly identify the "claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection." Scisney v. State , 701 N.E.2d 847 , 849 (Ind. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Benefiel v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Benefiel v. State, 716 N.E.2d 906, 914 (Ind. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2012These instructions, in effect, stated that the defendant should not be found guilty, if the jury believed from the evidence that the killing was accidental and not unlawful. 154 N.E. at 371 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchem v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Ind. Trial Rule 51(C); Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Ind.1998) (concluding that "appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection"); Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 675 (Ind.1997) (waiving one of defendant's alleged errors where defendant failed to distinctly state his objection and the grounds for it at trial). 2004Ind. Trial Rule 51(C); Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Ind.1998) (concluding that "appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection"); Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 675 (Ind.1997) (waiving one of defendant's alleged errors where defendant failed to distinctly state his objection and the grounds for it at trial). | 1 | 1 |
Luna v. Stategreen2 sentences2004In Luna v. State, 758 N.E.2d 515, 518 (Ind.2001), the defendant "made a timely trial objection and identified the claimed objectionable matter but the objection did not clearly identify the grounds for the objection" (emphasis added). 2004In Luna v. State, 758 N.E.2d 515, 518 (Ind.2001), the defendant "made a timely trial objection and identified the claimed objectionable matter but the objection did not clearly identify the grounds for the objection" (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Burton v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1163, 1166 (Ind.1988); Channell v. State, 658 N.E.2d 925 , (Ind.Ct.App.1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gill v. State
green
2 sentences2014“Appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection.” Id. 2014“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 |
Simpson v. State
green
1 sentence2013We find Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied. instructive. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Helsley v. State
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Channell v. State
green
1 sentence1996Burton v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1163, 1166 (Ind.1988); Channell v. State, 658 N.E.2d 925 , (Ind.Ct.App.1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Churchill v. Briggs
green
2 sentences1994For example, the court in Churchill v. Briggs (1938), 225 Iowa 1187 , 282 N.W. 280 , held that evidence that the plaintiff-passenger directed the defendant-driver's route was not sufficient to support the giving of a jury instruction on joint enterprise. 1994For example, the court in Churchill v. Briggs (1938), 225 Iowa 1187 , 282 N.W. 280 , held that evidence that the plaintiff-passenger directed the defendant-driver's route was not sufficient to support the giving of a jury instruction on joint enterprise. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Crabtree v. State
green
1 sentence1992Crabtree v. State (1990), Ind.App., 547 N.E.2d 286, 292 , trams. denied. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Weller v. MacK Trucks, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Weller v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 1341, 1343 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.