13 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sample v. Stategreen2 sentences2023It was unnecessary to constitutionalize the jury’s right to determine the law in a habitual offender hearing, the Court reasoned, given that the “law and facts” statute also guaranteed it. 895 N.E.2d at 1185 . 8 Seay was correct in its holding and its original constitutional basis. 9 The legislature has provided for a jury trial in habitual offender status 8 The revised, non-constitutional basis for the jury’s role went unrecognized in Sample v. State, which reverted to reliance on “the jury’s Article I, Section 19 authority.” 932 N.E.2d 1230 , 1233 (Ind. 2010). 9This determination that Articl 2013See Sample v. State, 932 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2010). | 1 | 2 |
Girl Scouts of Southern Illinois v. Vincennes Indiana Girls, Inc.green1 sentence2023This Court will “generally avoid addressing constitutional questions if a case can be resolved on other grounds.” Girl Scouts of S. Illinois v. Vincennes Indiana Girls, Inc., 988 N.E.2d 250, 254 (Ind. 2013) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Canaan v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Canaan v. State, 683 N.E.2d 227, 235 (Ind. 1997) (“An available grounds for relief not raised at trial or on direct appeal is not available as a grounds for collateral attack.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Tuckergreen2 sentences1982Compare United States v. Tucker (1972), 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 . 1982Compare United States v. Tucker (1972), 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. State
green
2 sentences2012Id. 1999In contrast, Snyder, 668 N.E.2d 1214 involved a plea agreement regarding the underlying offenses, with a bench trial on the habitual offender claim. | 2 | 1999–2012 |
Williams v. State
neutral
2 sentences1989Williams v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 793 . 1985Williams v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 793 . | 2 | 1985–1989 |
State v. Hollars
green
1 sentence2023It was unnecessary to constitutionalize the jury’s right to determine the law in a habitual offender hearing, the Court reasoned, given that the “law and facts” statute also guaranteed it. 895 N.E.2d at 1185 . 8 Seay was correct in its holding and its original constitutional basis. 9 The legislature has provided for a jury trial in habitual offender status 8 The revised, non-constitutional basis for the jury’s role went unrecognized in Sample v. State, which reverted to reliance on “the jury’s Article I, Section 19 authority.” 932 N.E.2d 1230 , 1233 (Ind. 2010). 9This determination that Articl | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Maffett v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. 8 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Boykin v. State
green
1 sentence1999We note that in Boykin v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) a panel of this court determined that when a habitual offender conviction was vacated, the conviction of the underlying offense must also be vacated. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Snyder v. State
green
2 sentences1997Snyder, 654 N.E.2d at 19 . 1997Snyder, 654 N.E.2d at 19 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lawrence v. State
green
2 sentences1985Defendant relies on Lawrence v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 306 , 286 N.E.2d 830 , wherein we held that the habitual offender hearing must be bifurcated from the trial on the underlying felony, because disclosure of a defendant's prior convictions during a trial on both the underlying offense and habitual offender count would prejudice the jury to a defendant's detriment. 1985Defendant relies on Lawrence v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 306 , 286 N.E.2d 830 , wherein we held that the habitual offender hearing must be bifurcated from the trial on the underlying felony, because disclosure of a defendant's prior convictions during a trial on both the underlying offense and habitual offender count would prejudice the jury to a defendant's detriment. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Barnett v. State
green
1 sentence1984McConnell v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1097, 1102 ; Barnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 625, 626 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
McConnell v. State
green
1 sentence1984McConnell v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1097, 1102 ; Barnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 625, 626 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Haynes v. State
green
1 sentence1983We are cognizant that our -courts apparently have recognized the right of a person charged with being an habitual offender to challenge the validity of the underlying felony convictions on constitutional grounds, Hall v. State, (1980) Ind., 405 N.E.2d 530 ; Haynes v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 874 , although some question exists as to the precise method for doing so. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence1983We are cognizant that our -courts apparently have recognized the right of a person charged with being an habitual offender to challenge the validity of the underlying felony convictions on constitutional grounds, Hall v. State, (1980) Ind., 405 N.E.2d 530 ; Haynes v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 874 , although some question exists as to the precise method for doing so. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.