15 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hauk v. Stategreen2 sentences2016However, “[t]rial court error in excluding evidence is harmless if the probable impact of the error on the jury, in light of all of the evidence, is sufficiently minor such that it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994, 1002 (Ind. 2000). [15] Hall contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that B.B. had been gang raped by fellow students, which caused her to be terrified of going to school. 2015“Trial court error is harmless if the probable impact of the error on the jury, in light of all of the evidence, is sufficiently minor such that it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994, 1002 (Ind. 2000)). | 5 | 5 |
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 376 (Ind. Ct.App.1996). 2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen | 3 | 3 |
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Black v. State, 794 N.E.2d 561, 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [14] We cannot say Peterson’s lone statement unfairly prejudiced Ewing when evaluated in light of all the other compelling evidence supporting Ewing’s conviction. 2004Black v. State, 794 N.E.2d 561, 565 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Bald v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“Trial court error is harmless if the probable impact of the error on the jury, in light of all of the evidence, is sufficiently minor such that it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994, 1002 (Ind. 2000)). 2015“Trial court error is harmless if the probable impact of the error on the [trier of fact], in light of all of the evidence, is sufficiently minor such that it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994, 1002 (Ind. 2000)). | 2 | 2 |
Fleener v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ind.1995). 1996Fleener, 656 N.E.2d at 1142 . | 1 | 2 |
Michael Inman v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Inman v. State, 4 N.E.3d 190, 197 (Ind.2014) ("Trial court error is harmless if the probable impact of the error on the jury, in light of all the evidence, is sufficiently minor such that it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.") (quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence2005"When reviewing an erroneous evidentiary ruling by the trial court, we apply the harmless error rule, determining if the probable impact of the error, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties." Mitchell v. State, 813 N.E.2d 422, 482 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trams. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Saperito v. Stategreen2 sentences2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen 2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 704 (Ind.1999) (citing Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind.1998), reh’g denied). | 1 | 1 |
Sylvester v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 704 (Ind.1999) (citing Sylvester v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind.1998), reh’g 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ground v. State
green
2 sentences2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen 2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.