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.
13 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pigg v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Id. 1998See also Pigg v. State, 603 N.E.2d 154 (Ind.1992) (new trial was required because defendant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witness as to his address; in camera hearing would have enabled trial court to assess relevance of the proposed questioning). | 4 | 6 |
Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc.green2 sentences2004Also, in Owens v. Best Beers, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), we noted that the applicability of the privilege must be established as to each document sought and that a court could not make such a determination in ignorance of the facts and that, "[i]f necessary, a court may conduct an in camera inquiry to inform itself sufficiently to act." Id. 2004Also, in Owens v. Best Beers, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), we noted that the applicability of the privilege must be established as to each document sought and that a court could not make such a determination in ignorance of the facts and that, "[i]f necessary, a court may conduct an in camera inquiry to inform itself sufficiently to act." Id. | 1 | 3 |
Baxter v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard | 1 | 1 |
Minnick v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard | 1 | 1 |
Morrison v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Pigg, 603 N.E.2d at 157 ; Morrison v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1155, 1158 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Turnbow, 637 N.E.2d at 1332 . 1997Pigg, 603 N.E.2d at 157 ; Morrison v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1155, 1158 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Turnbow, 637 N.E.2d at 1332 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Corbin v. Stategreen2 sentences1994In so holding, the court distinguished Corbin v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 86 , wherein the court held that an in camera hearing was not required and prejudice was not presumed when an informant is not the sole witness and his testimony is consistent with the testimony of other witnesses. 1992As to Crull, Corbin distinguished itself in this way: "[i]n the instant case, unlike Crull , appellant made no request for an in camera hearing to determine reasonableness of refusal to disclose [the State's witness's address]." 563 N.E.2d at 90 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Bodwell
green
2 sentences1999Thus, in United States v. Bodwell, the court vacated a contempt citation against a witness and remanded the cause after the trial court failed to allow him to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege on a question-by-question basis and declined to conduct an in camera hearing on the merits of his claim. 66 F.3d 1000 , 1002 (9th Cir.1995). [9] The trial court erred when it declined to consider the witnesses' assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination on a question-by-question basis. 1999Thus, in United States v. Bodwell, the court vacated a contempt citation against a witness and remanded the cause after the trial court failed to allow him to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege on a question-by-question basis and declined to conduct an in camera hearing on the merits of his claim. 66 F.3d 1000 , 1002 (9th Cir.1995). 9 The trial court erred when it declined to consider the witnesses’ assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination on a question-by-question basis. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Hulett v. State
green
2 sentences1998Hulett v. State, 552 N.E.2d 47 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (defendant's motion to compel production of statements that alleged child molestation victim made to welfare department before the trial was denied without an in camera hearing); Sturgill v. State, 497 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (same). 1998Hulett v. State, 552 N.E.2d 47 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (defendant's motion to compel production of statements that alleged child molestation victim made to welfare department before the trial was denied without an in camera hearing); Sturgill v. State, 497 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (same). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Sturgill v. State
green
2 sentences1998Hulett v. State, 552 N.E.2d 47 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (defendant's motion to compel production of statements that alleged child molestation victim made to welfare department before the trial was denied without an in camera hearing); Sturgill v. State, 497 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (same). 1998Hulett v. State, 552 N.E.2d 47 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (defendant's motion to compel production of statements that alleged child molestation victim made to welfare department before the trial was denied without an in camera hearing); Sturgill v. State, 497 N.E.2d 1070 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (same). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Minnick v. Indiana
neutral
2 sentences2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard 2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Minnick v. State
neutral
1 sentence2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Palmer v. State
green
1 sentence2000Issues that were available to the petitioner on direct appeal, but were not raised, are waived for post-conviction *880 review; therefore, Poling waived these issues and could not assert them in his first petition for post-conviction relief 5 See Palmer v. State, 568 N.E.2d 601 , 603 (Ind. 1990) (regarding right to cross-examine witnesses), reh'g granted, 573 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.1991) (granting post-conviction relief on another basis); Baxter v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (regarding waiver of jury instruction issues); Minnick v. State, 698 N.E.2d 745, 750-751 (Ind.1998) (regard | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Turnbow v. State
green
2 sentences1997Pigg, 603 N.E.2d at 157 ; Morrison v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1155, 1158 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Turnbow, 637 N.E.2d at 1332 . 1997Pigg, 603 N.E.2d at 157 ; Morrison v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1155, 1158 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Turnbow, 637 N.E.2d at 1332 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Pigg v. State
green
1 sentence1993In Pigg, the supreme court affirmed this court's conclusion in Pigg v. State (1992), Ind.App., 591 N.E.2d 582 , that by not holding an in camera hearing to determine the necessity of withholding the witness's address, the trial court impermissibly restricted Pigg's right to cross-examination. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Sears v. State
green
2 sentences1993In affirming, our supreme court first observed that "one of the fundamental rights of our criminal justice system granted by the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution is the right of a defendant to cross-examination." Pigg v. State (1992), Ind., 603 N.E.2d 154, 155 (citing Sears v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 561 , 282 N.E.2d 807, 808 ). 1993In affirming, our supreme court first observed that "one of the fundamental rights of our criminal justice system granted by the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution is the right of a defendant to cross-examination." Pigg v. State (1992), Ind., 603 N.E.2d 154, 155 (citing Sears v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 561 , 282 N.E.2d 807, 808 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Crull v. State
green
2 sentences1993Relying on our supreme court's decision in Crull v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1195 , Morrison maintains that it was reversible error for the trial court to restrict the cross-examination of the State's key witness as to his residence without first holding an in camera hearing to determine whether disclosure of such information would endanger the informant. 1993Relying on our supreme court's decision in Crull v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1195 , Morrison maintains that it was reversible error for the trial court to restrict the cross-examination of the State's key witness as to his residence without first holding an in camera hearing to determine whether disclosure of such information would endanger the informant. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1989Johnson, 518 N.E.2d at 1076 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.