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 2014–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kevin M. Clark v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2016Trial courts are in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, and we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and reverse only if a ruling is “ ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.’” Id. (quoting Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind.2013)). 2014Id. | 1 | 3 |
Owens v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Carpenter, 18 N.E.3d at 1001 . [29] Before addressing his arguments, we note that, in Owens v. State, the court held that as a general rule the results of a polygraph examination are not competent evidence and are inadmissible at trial, but that where a7ll the parties by stipulation have waived any objection, the court may allow the results to be admitted. 176 Ind. App. 1, 3 , 373 N.E.2d 913, 914-915 (1978). 2015Carpenter, 18 N.E.3d at 1001 . [29] Before addressing his arguments, we note that, in Owens v. State, the court held that as a general rule the results of a polygraph examination are not competent evidence and are inadmissible at trial, but that where a7ll the parties by stipulation have waived any objection, the court may allow the results to be admitted. 176 Ind. App. 1, 3 , 373 N.E.2d 913, 914-915 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jonathan D. Carpenter v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2023However, “[i]n ruling on admissibility following the denial of a motion to suppress,” the trial court “also considers the evidence from the suppression hearing that is favorable to the defendant”—but the trial court considers this additional evidence “only to the extent it is uncontradicted at trial.” Id. 2016“It also considers the evidence from the suppression hearing that is favorable to the defendant only to the extent it is uncontradicted at trial.” Id. | 9 | 2015–2024 |
David W. Gerth v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020Gerth v. State, 51 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Douglas A. Guilmette v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.