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 1973–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182, 186 (Ind. Ct.App.1998). " Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness's observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind'" Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1044-45 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind.1990)). 2013Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied (citing Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). “‘Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors 7 unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness’s observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind.’” Id. at 1045 (quoting Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind. 1990)). | 5 | 5 |
Eric Rasnick v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2024Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind. 1990) (concluding a show-up identification two and one-half hours after the crime was not unnecessarily Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1436 | December 27, 2024 Page 8 of 14 suggestive); see also Rasnick, 2 N.E.3d at 24 (concluding a show-up identification was not unduly suggestive “most importantly because the identification occurred within thirty minutes of the crime,” and distinguishing Hubbell and Wethington where show-up identifications occurred six hours and two hours, respectively, after the crimes, and carried indicia of unreliab 2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1007 | January 13, 2020 Page 6 of 9 Id. [14] “Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness’s observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind.” Rasnick v. State, 2 N.E.3d 17, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quotations omitted), trans. denied. [15] However, Billimon argues that the show-up identification was impermissibly suggestive because Evan and Jam | 3 | 3 |
Adkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182, 186 (Ind. Ct.App.1998). " Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness's observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind'" Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1044-45 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind.1990)). 2013Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied (citing Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). “‘Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors 7 unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness’s observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind.’” Id. at 1045 (quoting Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind. 1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Lyles v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182, 186 (Ind. Ct.App.1998). " Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness's observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind'" Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1044-45 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (quoting Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind.1990)). 2013Lyles v. State, 834 N.E.2d 1035, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied (citing Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). “‘Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors 7 unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness’s observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind.’” Id. at 1045 (quoting Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind. 1990)). | 2 | 2 |
Neil C. Albee v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2024Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.2d 1133, 1135 (Ind. 1990) (concluding a show-up identification two and one-half hours after the crime was not unnecessarily Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1436 | December 27, 2024 Page 8 of 14 suggestive); see also Rasnick, 2 N.E.3d at 24 (concluding a show-up identification was not unduly suggestive “most importantly because the identification occurred within thirty minutes of the crime,” and distinguishing Hubbell and Wethington where show-up identifications occurred six hours and two hours, respectively, after the crimes, and carried indicia of unreliab | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McPhearson v. State
green
2 sentences1983Jones v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 480 , 255 N.E.2d 219 ; McPhearson v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 . *901 The testimony of the victim and the police officers established that LV. viewed the defendant from a very close distance in adequate lighting. 1983Jones v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 480 , 255 N.E.2d 219 ; McPhearson v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 . *901 The testimony of the victim and the police officers established that LV. viewed the defendant from a very close distance in adequate lighting. | 3 | 1977–1983 |
Lewis v. State
green
2 sentences1982Zion v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 563 , 365 N.E.2d 766 , reh. denied (1977); McPhearson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 , reh. denied (1970); Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 , reh. denied (1969). 1982Zion v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 563 , 365 N.E.2d 766 , reh. denied (1977); McPhearson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 , reh. denied (1970); Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 , reh. denied (1969). | 2 | 1977–1982 |
Diano L. Gordon v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1007 | January 13, 2020 Page 6 of 9 Id. [14] “Identifications of a freshly apprehended suspect have been held to be not unnecessarily suggestive despite the suggestive factors unavoidably involved in such confrontations because of the value of the witness’s observation of the suspect while the image of the offender is fresh in his mind.” Rasnick v. State, 2 N.E.3d 17, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quotations omitted), trans. denied. [15] However, Billimon argues that the show-up identification was impermissibly suggestive because Evan and Jam | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hubbell v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. 5 Brock observed the driver of the red car for thirty seconds to one minute when he spoke to the driver immediately after the accident from near the open driver’s side door. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Dishman v. State
green
1 sentence1990Dishman v. State (1988), Ind., 525 N.E.2d 284 ; Glover, 441 N.E.2d at 1363 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Glover v. State
green
1 sentence1990Dishman v. State (1988), Ind., 525 N.E.2d 284 ; Glover, 441 N.E.2d at 1363 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1983Jones v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 480 , 255 N.E.2d 219 ; McPhearson v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 . *901 The testimony of the victim and the police officers established that LV. viewed the defendant from a very close distance in adequate lighting. 1983Jones v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 480 , 255 N.E.2d 219 ; McPhearson v. State, (1969) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 . *901 The testimony of the victim and the police officers established that LV. viewed the defendant from a very close distance in adequate lighting. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Zion v. State
green
2 sentences1982Zion v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 563 , 365 N.E.2d 766 , reh. denied (1977); McPhearson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 , reh. denied (1970); Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 , reh. denied (1969). 1982Zion v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 563 , 365 N.E.2d 766 , reh. denied (1977); McPhearson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 , reh. denied (1970); Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 , reh. denied (1969). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Dillard v. State
green
2 sentences1977Dillard v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 282 , 274 N.E.2d 387 ; McPherson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 ; Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 . 1977Dillard v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 282 , 274 N.E.2d 387 ; McPherson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 254 , 253 N.E.2d 226 ; Lewis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 454 , 250 N.E.2d 358 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Foster v. California
green
2 sentences1973Foster v. California (1969), 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S. Ct. 1127 , 22 L. 1973Foster v. California (1969), 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S. Ct. 1127 , 22 L. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
United States v. James O. Gambrill, United States of America v. Jerry L. Hunter
green
1 sentence1973Foster v. California (1969), 394 U.S. 440 , 89 S.Ct. 1127 , 22 L.Ed.2d 402 ; United States v. Gambrill, 146 U.S. App.D.C. 72, 449 F.2d 1148 (1971). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.