Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hardin v. Stategreen2 sentences2002In Hardin v. State, 611 N.E.2d 123, 127-28 (Ind.1993), the court explained that the rationale for the rule prohibiting the admission ' of bad act and character evidence to prove guilt "is predicated upon our fundamental precept that every defendant should only be required to defend against the specific charges filed." When this kind of evidence is admitted at trial as proof of guilt, "a defendant would be forced to refute these allegations as well as defend against the crime specifically charged," and "the burden on the defense would be intolerably enlarged and the court would effectively nega 2002In Hardin v. State, 611 N.E.2d 123, 127-28 (Ind.1993), the court explained that the rationale for the rule prohibiting the admission ' of bad act and character evidence to prove guilt "is predicated upon our fundamental precept that every defendant should only be required to defend against the specific charges filed." When this kind of evidence is admitted at trial as proof of guilt, "a defendant would be forced to refute these allegations as well as defend against the crime specifically charged," and "the burden on the defense would be intolerably enlarged and the court would effectively nega | 4 | 7 |
Malone v. Stategreen2 sentences1995If a court were to indiscriminately admit proof of criminal activity beyond that specifically charged, then the burden on the defense would be intolerably enlarged and the court would effectively negate the due process presumption of innocence that our system of justice accords to every accused.” 611 N.E.2d at 127 -28 (citing Malone, supra, 441 N.E.2d at 1345-46 ). 1995If a court were to indiscriminately admit proof of criminal activity beyond that specifically charged, then the burden on the defense would be intolerably enlarged and the court would effectively negate the due process presumption of innocence that our system of justice accords to every accused.” 611 N.E.2d at 127 -28 (citing Malone, supra, 441 N.E.2d at 1345-46 ). | 2 | 3 |
McKinney v. Stategreen1 sentence2017McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115, 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Randy Boss and Revell Boss v. Guy Pierce and Mark A. Pierson
green
1 sentence2004The court rejected this contention and observed: "accepting the State's position would place a burden on defense counsel that goes far beyond what reasonable dili-genee demands." Id. at 741 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Swain v. State
green
2 sentences1999Secondly, the “admission of evidence of criminal activity beyond that specifically charged [may have] ‘intolerably enlarge[d]’ the burden on the defense and ‘effectively negate[d]’ the due process presumption of innocence accorded to [Williams].” Id. (citations omitted). 1999Secondly, the "admission of evidence of criminal activity beyond that specifically charged [may have] `intolerably enlarge[d]' the burden on the defense and `effectively negate[d]' the due process presumption of innocence accorded to [Williams]." Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1995The burden of proof on the prosecution never shifted to the defendant in this case, Smith v. State (1969), Ind., 249 N.E.2d 493 ; and based upon the facts of this case, we should not ereate a rule to shift such a burden to the defense. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences1995Hill v. State (1937), 212 Ind. 692 , 11 N.E.2d 141 . 1995Hill v. State (1937), 212 Ind. 692 , 11 N.E.2d 141 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Roberts v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986He has also framed these same issues of attorney incompetence in terms which allege denial of a fundamentally fair trial, As we stated today in Roberts v. State, Ind., 492 N.E.2d 310 (1986), having concluded that his assertions were unmeritorious as a basis for his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, we similarly find that they are no more compelling when labelled with the words "fair trial." II Sufficiency of Court's Findings and Conclusions The trial court made the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS The Petitioner herein has not met the burden of proof re competency of counsel. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Smithers
green
2 sentences1974State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 and cases there cited. 1974State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512 , 269 N.E.2d 874 and cases there cited. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.