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.
8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spivey v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1506-CR-758| April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 18 establish only one or even several, but not all, of the essential elements of a second offense.” Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831, 833 (Ind. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Southward v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Southward v. State, 957 N.E.2d 975, 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Troxell v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811, 814 (Ind. 2002). [11] To establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that the alleged errors constitute blatant violations of due process and are so prejudicial to the defendant’s rights that a fair trial is impossible. | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen1 sentence2014See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 ; Shinault v. State, 668 N.E.2d 274, 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Shinault v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 ; Shinault v. State, 668 N.E.2d 274, 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Lewis v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1116, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (failure to make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of evidence at trial results in waiver of the error on appeal). 6 Davis now attempts to avoid waiver by claiming that the admission of the evidence constituted fundamental error. | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Butler v. State, 622 N.E.2d 1035, 1041 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), reh. denied, trans. denied (failure to raise an objection at trial results in waiver). *976 Abdul-Musawwir attempts to circumvent this waiver by arguing that the admission of the evidence constituted fundamental error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. State
green
1 sentence2005First, we observe that the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule "is to promote fair trial by precluding a party from sitting idly by and appearing to assent to an offer of evidence or ruling by the court only to ery foul when the outcome goes against him." Stewart, 567 N.E.2d at 174 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Steelman v. State
green
1 sentence1994Id. at 157-58 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.