substance of the tendered instruction in Indiana

2025This review includes “‘(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions that are given.’” Owen v. State, 210 N.E.3d 256 , 267 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Chambers v. State, 734 N.E.2d 578, 580 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied), reh’g denied. “[E]rror in a particular instruction will not result in reversal unless the entire jury charge misleads the jury as to the law in the case.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1284-85 (Ind. 2014

2024To determine if a trial court abused its discretion, we consider “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions that are given.” Chambers v. State, 734 N.E.2d 578, 580 (Ind. 2000) (citing Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 926 (Ind. 1999)).

2002Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787-88 (Ind.1998); Griffin v. State, 644 N.E.2d 561, 562 (Ind.1994).

2000Williams v. State, 700 N.E.2d 784, 787-88 (Ind.1998); Griffin v. State, 644 N.E.2d 561, 562 (Ind.1994).

2025In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction, we consider: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. 2002).

2023We consider: “‘(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.’” Id. (quoting Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. 2002)).

2024To determine if a trial court abused its discretion, we consider “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions that are given.” Chambers v. State, 734 N.E.2d 578, 580 (Ind. 2000) (citing Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 926 (Ind. 1999)).

2023To determine if a trial court abused its discretion, we consider “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions that are given.” Chambers v. State, 734 N.E.2d 578, 580 (Ind. 2000) (citing Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 926 (Ind. 1999)).

2015Springer v. State, 798 N.E.2d 431, 433 (Ind. 2003).

2014Id.

2023When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we consider: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind. 2000).

2014In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give a tendered jury instruction, we consider: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind. 2000).

2018When we review the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions, we consider "(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; [and] (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which were given." Davis v. State , 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 , 838 (1976) (internal citations omitted).

2018When we review the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions, we consider "(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; [and] (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which were given." Davis v. State , 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 , 838 (1976) (internal citations omitted).

2014When reviewing a trial court’s decision to refuse or give jury instructions, this Court “considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Watson v. State, 972 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Gravens v. State, 836 N.E.2d 490, 493 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied).

2013When reviewing a trial court's decision to refuse or give jury instructions, this Court "considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (8) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given." Watson v. State, 972 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Gravens v. State, 836 N.E.2d 490, 493 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied ).

2024A trial court erroneously refuses to give a tendered instruction if: “(1) the instruction correctly sets out the law; (2) evidence supports the giving of the instruction; and (3) the substance of the tendered instruction is not covered by the other instructions given.” Id. at 1164 .

2010"A trial court erroneously refuses to give a tendered instruction, or part of a tendered instruction, if: (1) the instruction correctly sets out the law; (2) the evidence supports the giving of the instruction; and (3) the substance of the tendered instruction is not covered by the other instructions given." Id. at 1164 . "'As a general rule, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense which has some foundation in the evidence."" Snell, 866 N.E.2d at 396 (quoting Howard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 242, 247 (Ind.Ct.App.2001)).

2020“When reviewing a trial court’s decision to refuse or give jury instructions, this Court ‘considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.’” Id. (quoting Watson v. State, 972 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)).

2014When reviewing a trial court’s decision to refuse or give jury instructions, this Court “considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Watson v. State, 972 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Gravens v. State, 836 N.E.2d 490, 493 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied).

2019Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 636 (Ind. 2010) (internal citation omitted). “[T]his Court considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. 2002) (internal citation omitted).

2018Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 636 (Ind. 2010) (internal citation omitted). “[T]his Court considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. 2002) (internal citation omitted).

1998Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind.1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 570 .

1997When reviewing a judge’s refusal of an instruction, the court applies a three part test. “1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; 2) whether there was evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and 3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Reinbold v. State, 555 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind.1990) overruled in part on other grounds by 658 N.E.2d 563, 570 .

2026Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 345-46 (Ind. 2013) (citation modified). [27] Rodriguez does not dispute that the language added by the court to his proffered jury instruction, regarding both the subjective and objective standards for self-defense, was correct as a matter of law. 6 See id. at 349 .

2018Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342, 345 (Ind. 2013). [39] In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse tendered jury instructions, this Court considers: (1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions that are given.

1987"A three-part test is employed to determine whether a trial court has erred in its refusal to give a tendered instruction: 'In considering whether any error results from refusal of a tendered instruction we must determine: (1) whether the tendered instruction cor *86 rectly states the law, Gayer v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 113 , 210 N.E.2d 852 ; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, Wathen v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 245 , 204 N.E.2d 526 ; (8) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given, Hash v.

1987"A three-part test is employed to determine whether a trial court has erred in its refusal to give a tendered instruction: 'In considering whether any error results from refusal of a tendered instruction we must determine: (1) whether the ten dered instruction correctly states the law, Gayer v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 113 , 210 N.E.2d 852 ; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, Wathen v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 245 , 204 N.E.2d 526 ; (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given, Hash v. Stat

1983In determining whether there is error in refusing an instruction, it must be determined whether the instruction correctly states the law, whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions, and whether the evidence supports the instructions Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 .

1983In determining whether there is error in refusing an instruction, it must be determined whether the instruction correctly states the law, whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions, and whether the evidence supports the instructions Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 .

1997Day v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1072, 1075 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind.1991)).

1997Evans v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1231, 1236-37 (Ind.1991).

2019“In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse tendered jury instructions, we consider: ‘(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions that are given.’” Id. (quoting Chambers v. State, 734 N.E.2d 578, 580 (Ind. 2000), trans. denied.

2012Id.

1999Ellis v. State, 707 N.E.2d 797, 803 (Ind.1999); Griffin v. State, 644 N.E.2d 561, 562 (Ind.1994); Jackson v. State, 490 N.E.2d 1115, 1118 (Ind.1986).

1989Jackson v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 1115 .