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 1982–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graves v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Graves v. State, 714 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “[T]he court may modify its instructions when it is faced with an omitted instruction or an erroneous instruction, so long as it is fair to the parties.” Hero, 765 N.E.2d at 602 (citing Jenkins v. State, 424 N.E.2d 1002, 1003 (Ind. 1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Graves v. State, 714 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “[T]he court may modify its instructions when it is faced with an omitted instruction or an erroneous instruction, so long as it is fair to the parties.” Hero, 765 N.E.2d at 602 (citing Jenkins v. State, 424 N.E.2d 1002, 1003 (Ind. 1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Dowell v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2016“This rule prevents the trial court from giving special emphasis, inadvertent or otherwise, to a particular issue in the case, and thus avoids the possibility that the additional instruction might tell the jury what it ought to do concerning that issue.” Dowell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 58, 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Crowdus, 431 N.E.2d at 798 ). [14] “[O]ne limited and narrow exception” to that “strict rule” exists. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“The generally accepted procedure in answering a jury’s question on a matter of law is to reread all instructions in order to avoid emphasizing any particular point and not to qualify, modify, or explain its instructions in any way.” Martin v. State, 760 N.E.2d 597, 601 (Ind.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Downs v. Stategreen1 sentence2001This general prohibition exists to protect against giving special emphasis, inadvertent or otherwise, to a particular issue and to guard against the possibility that the additional instruction of the jury might suggest a resolution to an issue." Downs v. State, 656 N.E.2d 849, 851-52 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crowdus v. State
green
2 sentences2018“This rule prevents the trial court from giving special emphasis, inadvertent or otherwise, to a particular Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1706-CR-1437 | March 14, 2018 Page 13 of 17 issue in the case, and thus avoids the possibility that the additional instruction might tell the jury what it ought to do concerning that issue.” Id. 2016“This rule prevents the trial court from giving special emphasis, inadvertent or otherwise, to a particular issue in the case, and thus avoids the possibility that the additional instruction might tell the jury what it ought to do concerning that issue.” Dowell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 58, 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Crowdus, 431 N.E.2d at 798 ). [14] “[O]ne limited and narrow exception” to that “strict rule” exists. | 9 | 1984–2018 |
Hero v. State
green
1 sentence2016Graves v. State, 714 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “[T]he court may modify its instructions when it is faced with an omitted instruction or an erroneous instruction, so long as it is fair to the parties.” Hero, 765 N.E.2d at 602 (citing Jenkins v. State, 424 N.E.2d 1002, 1003 (Ind. 1981)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jason Fields v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2016“This rule precludes the trial court from giving any special emphasis, inadvertent or otherwise, to a particular issue in the case, and thus avoids the possibility that the additional instruction(s) may tell the jury what it ought to do concerning that issue.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cabell v. State
green
1 sentence2012“This rule precludes the trial court from giving any special emphasis, inadvertent or otherwise, to a particular issue in the case, and thus avoids the possibility that the additional instruction(s) may tell the jury what it ought to do concerning that issue.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wallace v. State
green
1 sentence1982Wallace v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 34, 36 ; Cameron v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1039, 1041 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Cameron v. State
green
1 sentence1982Wallace v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 34, 36 ; Cameron v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1039, 1041 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.