substance instruction in Indiana

2017Fields v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1315, 1322 (Ind. 1997).

2004Fields v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1315, 1322 (Ind.1997).

2016Hubbard v. State, 742 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind. 2001). [12] In addition, in order to obtain reversal, a defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions prejudiced his substantial rights.

2016Hubbard v. State, 742 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind.2001).

2019To determine whether a jury instruction was properly refused, we consider: “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002).

2018Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “‘In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by declining to give a tendered instruction, we consider the following: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Id. (quoting Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002)).

2013See Smith v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1262, 1269 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (holding that an instruction that the jury "should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that the Defendant is innocent" satisfied the holding in Robey and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to use the defendant's tendered instruction because the substance of that instruction was covered by instructions given by the court), trans. denied; Simpson, 915 N.E.2d at 520 ; Watson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 885, 888 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (holding that the court did not err in refusing to give the defendan

2013Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), trans. denied.

2018On review, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1703-CR-523 | March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 13 law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Id. at 1230–31. “[W]e consider the instructions as a whole and in reference to each other and do not reverse the trial court for an abuse of discretion unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury as to the law in the cas

2017See McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 764 (providing that in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a proffered instruction, we consider whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given); Lowden, 51 N.E.3d at 1224 (providing that the trial court properly refused to give the defendant’s proffered jury instruction because the instruction was not a correct statement of the law).

2015Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1409-CR-683 | June 5, 2015 Page 4 of 9 [14] Our standard of review in such cases is well settled: When reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse to give a party’s tendered instruction, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind. 2001).

2014In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give an instruction, we consider “‘(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to 13 support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228, 1230-31 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind. 2001)).

2019On review, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Id. at 1230-31 (citation omitted).

2018On review, we consider “(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1703-CR-523 | March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 13 law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and, (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.” Id. at 1230–31. “[W]e consider the instructions as a whole and in reference to each other and do not reverse the trial court for an abuse of discretion unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury as to the law in the cas

2018Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “‘In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by declining to give a tendered instruction, we consider the following: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Id. (quoting Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002)).

2018Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. 2003). “‘In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by declining to give a tendered instruction, we consider the following: (1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.’” Id. (quoting Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248, 1253 (Ind. 2002)).

2018Howard Reg'l Health Sys. v. Gordon , 952 N.E.2d 182 , 185 (Ind. 2011) (emphasis added); Doe by Roe v. Madison Center Hosp. , 652 N.E.2d 101 , 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. dismissed . *642 When deciding whether a claim falls under the provisions of the [IMMA,] "we are guided by the substance of a claim to determine the applicability of the Act." Doe by Roe , 652 N.E.2d at 104 . "[T]he test to determine whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice is 'whether the claim is based on the provider's behavior or practices while acting in his professional capacity as a provider of medical service

2018Howard Reg'l Health Sys. v. Gordon , 952 N.E.2d 182 , 185 (Ind. 2011) (emphasis added); Doe by Roe v. Madison Center Hosp. , 652 N.E.2d 101 , 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. dismissed . *642 When deciding whether a claim falls under the provisions of the [IMMA,] "we are guided by the substance of a claim to determine the applicability of the Act." Doe by Roe , 652 N.E.2d at 104 . "[T]he test to determine whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice is 'whether the claim is based on the provider's behavior or practices while acting in his professional capacity as a provider of medical service

1999Taylor v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1293, 1303 (Ind.1992), reh. denied.

1996Taylor, supra. In addition, the substance of the instruction was covered by the other instructions given.

2019Id. [9] When “the claimed error is failure to give an instruction, a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-363 | February 12, 2019 Page 4 of 11 to consider and implement the request.” Mitchell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind. 2001).

2012When the asserted error is declining to give an instruction, “a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and implement the request.” Mitchell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 953, 955 (Ind.2001) (quoting Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 , 848 n. 3 (Ind.1998)) (distinguishing between not giving an instruction and giving an erroneous one). *857 Failure to tender an instruction generally results in waiver of the issue for review.

2016Miller v. Ryan, 706 N.E.2d 244, 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.

1999In reviewing this issue, we apply a three-part inquiry: “1) whether the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law; 2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the instruction; and 3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions given by the court.” Miller v. Ryan, 706 N.E.2d 244, 248 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

2008Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind.2006); Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., *799 608 N.E.2d 975, 979 (Ind.1993).

2008Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind.2006); Miller Brewing Co. v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 975, 979 (Ind.1993).

2015“It is therefore the substance of a claim, not its caption, which determines whether compliance with the [MMA] is necessary.” Van Sice v. Sentany, 595 N.E.2d 264, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). [21] Here, there is no question that Planned Parenthood qualifies as a “health care provider” under the MMA.

2008It is therefore the substance of a claim, not its caption, which determines whether compliance with the Act is necessary. *1202 Van Sice v. Sentany, 595 N.E.2d 264, 266 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (statutory citations omitted).

2020It is long settled that “because the substance of a claim under [the CVRA] is punitive rather than compensatory, such claims are subject to a two- year statute of limitations.” Id. (quoting Prime Mortg.

2020It is long settled that “because the substance of a claim under [the CVRA] is punitive rather than compensatory, such claims are subject to a two- year statute of limitations.” Id. (quoting Prime Mortg.

2002When the trial court refuses a tendered instruction, we consider "(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 instruction is covered by other instructions given by the court." Id.

2002See Cline, 726 N.E.2d at 1256 ("the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions given by the court").

2020“In evaluating the propriety of a given instruction, we consider 1) whether the instruction correctly states the law, 2) whether there is evidence in the record Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-99 | September 3, 2020 Page 7 of 19 supporting the instruction, and 3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions.” Hill v. Rhinehart, 45 N.E.3d 427, 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2016Hill v. Rhmeharb, 45 N.E.3d 427, 439 (Ind.Ct.

2020See Smith v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1262, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (providing that the trial court did not abuse its Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2353 | August 27, 2020 Page 17 of 32 discretion in refusing to use a tendered instruction because the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions given by the court). 4.

2020See Smith v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1262, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (providing that the trial court did not abuse its Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-2353 | November 17, 2020 Page 17 of 32 discretion in refusing to use a tendered instruction because the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions given by the court). 4.

1990Dahiberg v. Ogle (1978), 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 .

1990Dahiberg v. Ogle (1978), 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 .

2019Boney v. State, 880 N.E.2d 279, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

2014Id.

2009Elmer Buchta Trucking, 744 N.E.2d at 944 .

2002We consider the following to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to give a tendered instruction: “1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; 2) whether there is evidence in the record supporting the instruction; and 3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions.” Id.

2018"When the claimed error is the failure to give an instruction ... a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and implement the request." Scisney v. State , 701 N.E.2d 847 , 848 n.3 (Ind. 1998) (emphasis in original). [32] A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that has some foundation in evidence, Creager v. State , 737 N.E.2d 771 , 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied , even if the ev

2015“When the claimed error is the failure to give an instruction . . . a tendered instruction is necessary to preserve error because, without the substance of an instruction upon which to rule, the trial court has not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider and implement the request.” Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 , 848 n.3 (Ind. 1998) (emphasis in original).

2018Id.

2018Howard Reg'l Health Sys. v. Gordon , 952 N.E.2d 182 , 185 (Ind. 2011) (emphasis added); Doe by Roe v. Madison Center Hosp. , 652 N.E.2d 101 , 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. dismissed . *642 When deciding whether a claim falls under the provisions of the [IMMA,] "we are guided by the substance of a claim to determine the applicability of the Act." Doe by Roe , 652 N.E.2d at 104 . "[T]he test to determine whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice is 'whether the claim is based on the provider's behavior or practices while acting in his professional capacity as a provider of medical service