last sentence instruction in Indiana

2016Ludy, 784 N.E.2d at 462 .

2016Ludy, 784 N.E.2d at 462 .

2015According to Juarez, this sentence created a mandatory presumption and shifted the burden of proof to him in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979).

1992Armstrong appears to have lifted the language from Weaver v. Tucker (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 1159, 1161 , which, in dicta explaining Indiana case law in this area, states: "However, despite even the best of efforts, animals are prone to escape confinement." Greathouse claims that the two concepts of reasonable care and "best efforts" are contradictory and therefore confused and misled the jury.

1977In Bobbitt v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 164 , 361 N.E.2d 1193 at 1200 , this court held that a similar instruction, containing the same deleted words, was not improperly refused when the jury was otherwise adequately instructed on the principle embodied in the refused instruction.

1977In Bobbitt v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 164 , 361 N.E.2d 1193 at 1200 , this court held that a similar instruction, containing the same deleted words, was not improperly refused when the jury was otherwise adequately instructed on the principle embodied in the refused instruction.

1970An instruction which told the jury that ‘you should consider the interest of defendant in the result of the case’ was held in Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155 , 149 N. E. 892 , to discredit the testimony of the defendant.

1970An instruction which told the jury that ‘you should consider the interest of defendant in the result of the case’ was held in Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155 , 149 N. E. 892 , to discredit the testimony of the defendant.

1938A similar statement as to the measure of damages was incorporated in two other instructions given to the jury, neither of which was tendered by appellant. *67 Appellee cites Depuy v. Clark (1859), 12 Ind. 427, 431 , in defense of said instructions.

1926Objection is made to the last sentence of instruction No. 6 given by the court, which part of same reads as follows: “If, however, you find from the evi dence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the building, room or place described in the affidavit was maintained by the defendant as a dry beer saloon, and that any quantity of intoxicating liquor was found *252 therein and under the control and custody of the defendant, you may draw any reasonable inference from such circumstances as to the purpose for which such liquor was there kept.” In Branson, Instructions to Juries (2d ed.) §13, citing Va

1926Objection is made to the last sentence of instruction No. 6 given by the court, which part of same reads as follows: “If, however, you find from the evi dence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the building, room or place described in the affidavit was maintained by the defendant as a dry beer saloon, and that any quantity of intoxicating liquor was found *252 therein and under the control and custody of the defendant, you may draw any reasonable inference from such circumstances as to the purpose for which such liquor was there kept.” In Branson, Instructions to Juries (2d ed.) §13, citing Va

1925The last sentence of instruction No. 7, and the part here questioned, was approved in the case of McDermott v. State (1883), 89 Ind. 187 , and reads as follows: “Where a homicide is perpetrated by intentional use of a deadly weapon, in such manner as is likely to and does produce death, the law presumes such homicide was committed purposely and maliciously, unless it was done in self-defense or upon a sudden heat, occasioned by such provocation as is adequate in law to reduce the killing to the grade of manslaughter.” Both of the foregoing instructions are attacked upon the ground of failure o

1899It did not withdraw the preceding matter, often held by this court to be objectionable, but left it to control the judgment of the jury.” In Cline v. Lindsey, 110 Ind. 337 , this instruction was given: “20th.