104 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2020Stickrod v. State, 108 N.E.3d 385, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, [however,] 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, 828 (1967). [19] At trial, Duffy argued that Wilson’s statement to the police was admissible as substantive evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 801(d). 2 On appeal, Duffy contends that the statement was admissible not to prove the truth of the matter, but rather “to challenge [Wilson’s] evolving narr 2020Stickrod v. State, 108 N.E.3d 385, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. “[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, [however,] 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, 828 (1967). [19] At trial, Duffy argued that Wilson’s statement to the police was admissible as substantive evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 801(d). 2 On appeal, Duffy contends that the statement was admissible not to prove the truth of the matter, but rather “to challenge [Wilson’s] evolving narr | 18 | 36 |
Alford v. Stategreen2 sentences2010As we have recognized: A federal constitutional error is reviewed de novo and must be "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 251 (Ind.1998) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 2010As we have recognized: A federal constitutional error is reviewed de novo and must be "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 251 (Ind.1998) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). | 2 | 5 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2018In Davenport v. State, we explained that: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2916 | July 16, 2018 Page 18 of 32 Absent a clear invocation of a violation of rights under the Indiana Constitution and cogent supporting argument, we will assume that defendant raises only a claim under the United States Constitution and will analyze that claim as we would a federal constitutional claim. 734 N.E.2d 622 , 624 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 , 1240 n. 3 (Ind. 1997)), trans. denied. 2014In Davenport v. State, we noted that “[ajbsent a clear invocation of a violation of rights under the Indiana Constitution and cogent supporting argument, we will assume that defendant raises only a claim under the United States Constitution and will analyze that claim as we would a federal constitutional claim.” 734 N.E.2d 622 , 626 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 , 1240 n. 3 (Ind.1997)). | 2 | 4 |
Davies v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“A federal constitutional error is reviewed de novo and must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Davies v. State, 730 N.E.2d 726, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted), trans. denied. [48] Crabtree contends that, without the information Crabtree provided in his police interview, the only evidence to support his conviction is L.C.’s CAC interview. 2007A federal constitutional error is reviewed de novo and must be “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Davies v. State, 730 N.E.2d 726, 735 (Ind. Ct.App.2000) (citing Chapman v. Califor *1030 nia, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)), trans. denied, cert, denied (2001). | 2 | 3 |
Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen2 sentences2015“Under the harmless error analysis, the State bears the burden of establishing that the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Robinette, 741 N.E.2d at 1165 (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629-30 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). 2015“Under the harmless error analysis, the State bears the burden of establishing that the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Robinette, 741 N.E.2d at 1165 (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 629-30 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). | 2 | 3 |
Meadows v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“The improper admission of evidence is harmless error when the reviewing court is satisfied that the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt so that there is no substantial likelihood that the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Meadows v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1112, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. [7] In this matter, said portions of the 911 call aside, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. 2019“The improper admission of evidence is harmless error when the reviewing court is satisfied that the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt so that there is no substantial likelihood that the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Meadows v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1112, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. [14] In this matter, Rush’s statements aside, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. | 2 | 2 |
Marq Hall v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2017“An error will be deemed 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 substantial rights of the parties.” Id. “[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.” Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 467 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)). [7] At trial, Wilson asked the 911 operator whether he believed J.B. sounded intoxicated. 2015Cf. Hall v. State, No. 49S05-1412-CR-728, 2015 WL 4041306 at *6 (Ind. July 2, 2015) (“‘[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.’”) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)). | 2 | 2 |
Pope v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Pope v. State, 853 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 2012Pope v. State, 853 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Crawford v. State, 669 N.E.2d 141, 145 (Ind. 1996). 20 When a defendant’s speedy trial rights have been implicated, we undertake a balancing test mandated by Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 (1972), in which the conduct of both the State and the defendant are weighed. 2012Crawford v. State, 669 N.E.2d 141, 145 (Ind.1996). 12 . | 2 | 2 |
McCorker v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257, 266 (Ind.2003) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (“[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”)) Major responds by arguing that while some federal constitutional errors are subject to harmless error analysis, “structural” constitutional errors are not subject to such analysis. 2006Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257, 266 (Ind.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Elmore v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 48 ("In 1978, the analysis under the Indiana Constitution was merged with the federal constitutional test ....") (citing Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532, 537 , 382 N.E.2d 893, 896 (1978)). 2002See Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 48 ("In 1978, the analysis under the Indiana Constitution was merged with the federal constitutional test ....") (citing Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532, 537 , 382 N.E.2d 893, 896 (1978)). | 2 | 2 |
Channell v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Chiesi , 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . 1: See also , e.g. , Jewell v. State , 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State , 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (same), trans. denied ; Smith v. State , 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same), trans. denied ; Ott v. State , 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same); Shipley v. State , 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (same). 2: Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. 1997Chiesi, 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . [1] See also, e.g., Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State, 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same), trans. denied; Smith v. State, 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (same), trans. denied: Ott v. State, 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same); Shipley v. State, 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (same). [2] Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Jewell v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Chiesi , 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . 1: See also , e.g. , Jewell v. State , 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State , 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (same), trans. denied ; Smith v. State , 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same), trans. denied ; Ott v. State , 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same); Shipley v. State , 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (same). 2: Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. 1997Chiesi, 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . [1] See also, e.g., Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State, 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same), trans. denied; Smith v. State, 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (same), trans. denied: Ott v. State, 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same); Shipley v. State, 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (same). [2] Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Chiesi , 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . 1: See also , e.g. , Jewell v. State , 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State , 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (same), trans. denied ; Smith v. State , 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same), trans. denied ; Ott v. State , 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same); Shipley v. State , 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (same). 2: Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. 1997Chiesi, 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . [1] See also, e.g., Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State, 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same), trans. denied; Smith v. State, 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (same), trans. denied: Ott v. State, 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same); Shipley v. State, 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (same). [2] Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Ott v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Chiesi , 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . 1: See also , e.g. , Jewell v. State , 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State , 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (same), trans. denied ; Smith v. State , 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same), trans. denied ; Ott v. State , 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (same); Shipley v. State , 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (same). 2: Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. 1997Chiesi, 644 N.E.2d at 106-07 . [1] See also, e.g., Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence distinct from federal); Channell v. State, 658 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same), trans. denied; Smith v. State, 655 N.E.2d 532, 545 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (same), trans. denied: Ott v. State, 648 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (same); Shipley v. State, 620 N.E.2d 710 , 717 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (same). [2] Chiesi was a unanimous decision making no reference, express or implied, to the federal constitution. | 2 | 2 |
| Zant v. Stephensgreen | 2 | 2 |
Greer v. Stategreen2 sentences1981See Greer v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 20 , 245 N.E.2d 158 . 1981See Greer v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 20 , 245 N.E.2d 158 . | 1 | 3 |
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences2012The double jeopardy analysis in Buie was abrogated in our supreme court’s seminal holding in Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999). 2002See Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 48 ("In 1978, the analysis under the Indiana Constitution was merged with the federal constitutional test ....") (citing Elmore v. State, 269 Ind. 532, 537 , 382 N.E.2d 893, 896 (1978)). | 1 | 2 |
| Class v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Griffin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hernandez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dullen v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Gagnongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ronald Rexroat v. State of Indianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| William P. Stickrod v. State of Indianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Willis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adrian Durden v. State of Indianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Litchfield v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Richardson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Koenig v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cardwell v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anglemyer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lainhart v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barker v. Wingogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Riggs v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Anderson v. Associated Furniture & Appliances, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carr v. State
green
2 sentences2020“And before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). 2019“And before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). | 4 | 2012–2020 |
Moreno v. State
green
2 sentences1976As explained in Moreno v. State, supra, 336 N.E.2d at 681 , in determining whether the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we must consider both the probative impact of the illegally obtained evidence upon the trial court and the amount and probative value of the other evidence in the record supporting the trial court's decision. 1976As explained in Moreno v. State, supra, 336 N.E.2d at 681 , in determining whether the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we must consider both the probative impact of the illegally obtained evidence upon the trial court and the amount and probative value of the other evidence in the record supporting the trial court’s decision. | 4 | 1976–1976 |
Davenport v. State
green
2 sentences2018In Davenport v. State, we explained that: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1712-CR-2916 | July 16, 2018 Page 18 of 32 Absent a clear invocation of a violation of rights under the Indiana Constitution and cogent supporting argument, we will assume that defendant raises only a claim under the United States Constitution and will analyze that claim as we would a federal constitutional claim. 734 N.E.2d 622 , 624 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 , 1240 n. 3 (Ind. 1997)), trans. denied. 2016The State further relies on Davenport v. State, 734 N.E.2d 622 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), for the proposition that “[a]bsent a clear invocation of a violation of rights under the Indiana Constitution and cogent supporting argument, we will assume that defendant raises only a claim under the.United States Constitution and will analyze that claim as we would a federal constitutional claim.” Br. • of Appellee at 13 (quoting Davenport, 734 N.E.2d at 624 n. 2). | 3 | 2014–2018 |
Oyler v. Boles
green
2 sentences2005Within the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation" so long as "the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663, 668-69 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962)) (emphases added). 2005Within the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation" so long as "the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663, 668-69 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962)) (emphases added). | 3 | 1981–2005 |
Arizona v. Fulminante
green
2 sentences2000A reviewing court must be satisfied that the State has “met its burden of demonstrating that the admission of the confession ... did not contribute to [the] conviction.” Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). 2000A reviewing court must be satisfied that the State has “met its burden of demonstrating that the admission of the confession ... did not contribute to [the] conviction.” Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 296 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). | 3 | 1994–2000 |
Rodman v. City of Wabash
green
2 sentences2016We find the trial court correctly concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed on the Rod-mans’ federal constitutional claim [of just compensation for a taking]. 497 N.E.2d at 242 . [34] Homeowners rely upon Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, — U.S.—, 133 S.Ct. 511 , 184 L.Ed.2d 417 (2012), to support their argument that damages resulting from temporary flooding can amount to a compensable taking. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Morales v. State
green
2 sentences2014We review a federal constitutional error de novo, and any error “must be ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’”3 Id. (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 (1967), reh’g denied). 2002"A federal constitutional error is reviewed de novo and must be 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. (citing Alford, 699 N.E.2d at 251 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 *582 LEd.2d 705 (1967))). | 2 | 2002–2014 |
Henry v. State
green
2 sentences2014Henry v. State, 738 N.E.2d 663 , 664 n. 1 (Ind.2000). 2005Henry v. State, 738 N.E.2d 663 , 664 n. 1 (Ind.2000). | 2 | 2005–2014 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences2012And since the suppression of this evidence undermines confidence in the outcome, see id., we conclude that this federal constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2012And since the suppression of this evidence undermines confidence in the outcome, see id., we conclude that this federal constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Storey v. State
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Kolender v. Lawson
green
2 sentences2010Thus a federal constitutional challenge on this ground is meritless." Id. at 572 (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)). 5 Whatley's vagueness claim focuses on the statute's requirement that programs or services be provided on a "regular" basis. 2010Thus a federal constitutional challenge on this ground is meritless." Id. at 572 (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)). 5 Whatley's vagueness claim focuses on the statute's requirement that programs or services be provided on a "regular" basis. | 2 | 1997–2010 |
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2005Within the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation" so long as "the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663, 668-69 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962)) (emphases added). 2005Within the limits set by the legislature's constitutionally valid definition of chargeable offenses, "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation" so long as "the selection was [not] deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 , 98 S.Ct. 663, 668-69 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) (quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct. 501, 506 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962)) (emphases added). | 2 | 1994–2005 |
| Shipley v. State green | 2 | 1997–1998 |
| Chiesi v. State green | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Roark v. State
green
2 sentences1998In the trial court's view, given the nature and circumstances of this offense "the jury's recommendation that the death penalty should not be imposed was an insufficient response in this case and clearly unreasonable." The trial court’s approach conforms to both (a) the Indiana statutory requirement of trial court consideration of the jury’s recommendation, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(e); Roark , 644 N.E.2d at 570 ; and (b) the federal constitutional requirement of an individualized sentencing determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime. 1997In the trial court’s view, given the nature and circumstances of this offense “the jury’s recommendation that the death penalty should not be imposed was an insufficient response in this case and clearly unreasonable.” The trial court’s approach conforms to both (a) the Indiana statutory requirement of trial court consideration of the jury’s recommendation, Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(e); Roark, 644 N.E.2d at 570 ; and (b) the federal constitutional requirement of an individualized sentencing determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
| Fahy v. Connecticut green | 2 | 1976–1994 |
| Larimer v. State green | 2 | 1976–1976 |
| Roe v. Wade red | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Simmons v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Lahr v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Faulisi v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Larry Bell v. State of Indiana green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Robinette v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Cantrell v. Morris green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| United States v. Demetrio J. Hernandez and Wayne Parrish green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Polk v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Luria Brothers & Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Thomas R. Allen, Jr. And Morton J. Greene, Trading as Economy Industrial Properties, a Partnership green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Finney v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| City of Gary v. Redmond green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Brown v. Sanders green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Smith v. Robinson red | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Gray v. Mississippi green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Griffith v. Kentucky green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| United States v. Dean William Cotnam and Phillip Zadurski green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Hughes v. Smith green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Cole v. United States green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| United States v. Booker green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Stenberg v. Carhart green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.