tendered jury instruction in Indiana

2025“Jury instructions are to be considered as a whole and in reference to each other; error in a particular instruction will not result in reversal unless the entire jury charge misleads the jury as to the law in the case.” Pattison v. State, 54 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Whitney v. State, 750 N.E.2d 342, 344 (Ind. 2001)).

2014Whitney v. State, 750 N.E.2d 342, 344 (Ind. 2001). 4 Carpenter challenges the trial court’s denial of her tendered instructions #2 and #5, both of which particularly relate to her confessions.

2014Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891, 893 (Ind. 2002).

2014In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction, “we consider whether the instruction (1) correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is covered in substance by other instructions.” Estate of Dyer v. Doyle, 870 N.E.2d, 573 581-82 (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891, 893 (Ind. 2002)).

2017“In reviewing a trial court's decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2329 | April 18, 2017 Page 4 of 12 (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is not covered in substance by other instructions.” Munford v. State, 923 N.E.2d 11, 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [8] Hoang argues that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on accomplice liability because there was no evidence in the record to support such an instruction.

2015“In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is not covered in substance by other instructions.” Munford v. State, 923 N.E.2d 11, 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Murray v. State, 798 N.E.2d 895, 899-900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). [11] Holt argues that the instruction informed the jury regarding expert testimony and is unsupported by the evidence because no expert witness testified.2 The instruction refers to a person “who has specialized educatio

2024Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind. 2012).

2014Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 (Ind.2012).

2012Walden v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. 2008).

2012Walden v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. 2008).

1998Taylor v. State, 629 N.E.2d 852, 855 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

1998Taylor v. State, 629 N.E.2d 852, 855 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2015“In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is not covered in substance by other instructions.” Munford v. State, 923 N.E.2d 11, 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Murray v. State, 798 N.E.2d 895, 899-900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)). [11] Holt argues that the instruction informed the jury regarding expert testimony and is unsupported by the evidence because no expert witness testified.2 The instruction refers to a person “who has specialized educatio

2007Cf. Murray v. State, 798 N.E.2d 895, 899-900 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) ("In reviewing a trial court's decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, (2) is supported by the evidence in the record, and (3) is not covered in substance by other instructions.”).

2020Matheny v. State, 983 N.E.2d 672, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2777 | December 8, 2020 Page 8 of 16 [16] We find Porter’s argument unpersuasive and conclude that Porter’s Proposed Jury Instruction 6 was an incomplete statement of law because it omitted the qualifying statement of “[u]nless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2 (d); see Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 350 (Ind. 2013) (holding that an instruction was properly refused because it was “misleadingly incomplete”); see also Matheny v. State, 983 N.E.2d 672, 679-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denie

2014Snell v. State, 866 N.E.2d 392, 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 8 Because a trial court has broad discretion in instructing a jury, we review a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.

2013Snell v. State, 866 N.E.2d 392, 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

2025In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction, we consider: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. 2002).

2002In reviewing the decision, Indiana appellate courts look to the following three factors: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.2002) (citing Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind.2000)).

2025“Jury instructions are to be considered as a whole and in reference to each other; error in a particular instruction will not result in reversal unless the entire jury charge misleads the jury as to the law in the case.” Pattison v. State, 54 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Whitney v. State, 750 N.E.2d 342, 344 (Ind. 2001)).

2020See Pattison v. State, 54 N.E.3d 361, 365 (Ind. 2016) (in reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction, appellate courts consider (among other things) whether the instruction correctly states the law); see also Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (intoxication is a defense only where the person engaged in prohibited conduct while he was intoxicated and his intoxication was the result of the introduction of a substance into his body without consent or when he lacked knowledge that the substance might cause intoxication).

2017Id. (citing Burton v. State, 978 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)). [14] A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.

2015Burton v. State, 978 N.E.2d 520, 526 (Ind.Ct.App.2012).

2015Santiago v. State, 985 N.E.2d 760, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

2014Santiago v. State, 985 N.E.2d 760, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing St.

2014Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231, 1236 (Ind. 1991).

1996Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231, 1236 (Ind.1991).

2014Regarding the second sentence, this court stated in Johnson v. State, 605 N.E.2d 762, 768 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, that a jury instruction containing that sentence, *1041 when combined with other instructions given, "properly informed the jury of the State's burden of proof." However, in Corley v. State, 663 N.E.2d 175, 177 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), this court held that it was proper to refuse to give a defendant's tendered jury instruction that included the second sentence because it was "mot a correct statement of the law." Campbell relies upon Corley in arguing that trial counsel should h

2014Regarding the second sentence, this court stated in Johnson v. State, 605 N.E.2d 762, 768 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, that a jury instruction containing that sentence, when combined with other instructions given, “properly informed the jury of the State’s burden of proof.” However, in Corley v. State, 663 N.E.2d 175, 177 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), this court held that it was proper to refuse to give a defendant’s tendered jury instruction that included the second sentence because it was “not a correct statement of the law.” Campbell relies upon Corley in arguing that trial counsel should have ob

2014In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind. 2000).

2002In reviewing the decision, Indiana appellate courts look to the following three factors: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind.2002) (citing Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind.2000)).

2014Regarding the second sentence, this court stated in Johnson v. State, 605 N.E.2d 762, 768 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, that a jury instruction containing that sentence, *1041 when combined with other instructions given, "properly informed the jury of the State's burden of proof." However, in Corley v. State, 663 N.E.2d 175, 177 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), this court held that it was proper to refuse to give a defendant's tendered jury instruction that included the second sentence because it was "mot a correct statement of the law." Campbell relies upon Corley in arguing that trial counsel should h

2014Regarding the second sentence, this court stated in Johnson v. State, 605 N.E.2d 762, 768 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied, that a jury instruction containing that sentence, when combined with other instructions given, “properly informed the jury of the State’s burden of proof.” However, in Corley v. State, 663 N.E.2d 175, 177 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), this court held that it was proper to refuse to give a defendant’s tendered jury instruction that included the second sentence because it was “not a correct statement of the law.” Campbell relies upon Corley in arguing that trial counsel should have ob

2014Tucker v. Harrison, 973 N.E.2d 46, 56 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied.

2013Tucker v. Harrison, 973 N.E.2d 46, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.

2013Lewis v. State, 898 N.E.2d 429, 433 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied.

2012Lewis v. State, 898 N.E.2d 429, 433 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied.

2010Wright v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1223, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2009Wright v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1223, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2006Flake v. State, 767 N.E.2d 1004, 1007 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2006Flake v. State, 767 N.E.2d 1004, 1007 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2006Forte v. State, 759 N.E.2d 206, 209 (Ind.2001).

2002Forte v. State, 759 N.E.2d 206, 209 (Ind.2001).

2002Hagerman Constr., Inc. v. Copeland, 697 N.E.2d 948, 959 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied.

2002Hagerman Constr., Inc. v. Copeland, 697 N.E.2d 948, 959 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied.

2001See Sherwood v. State, 702 N.E.2d 694, 698 (Ind.1998), reh'g denied; Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1109 (Ind.1997), reh'g denied.

1998Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098, 1109 (Ind.1997), rek’g denied.

2000Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 975, 979 (Ind.1993), reh. denied.

1996Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 975, 979 (Ind.1998), reh. denied.

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2777 | December 8, 2020 Page 8 of 16 [16] We find Porter’s argument unpersuasive and conclude that Porter’s Proposed Jury Instruction 6 was an incomplete statement of law because it omitted the qualifying statement of “[u]nless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2 (d); see Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 350 (Ind. 2013) (holding that an instruction was properly refused because it was “misleadingly incomplete”); see also Matheny v. State, 983 N.E.2d 672, 679-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denie

2016Id.

2025E.g., M.D. v. State, 108 N.E.3d 301, 303 (Ind. 2018). [11] In reviewing whether the trial court erred in declining to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider whether (1) the instruction correctly stated the law, (2) the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions, and (3) the record supported giving the instruction.

2025Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.