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 2 courts 1979–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Penley v. Stategreen1 sentence2013According to Wells the offenses do not satisfy the test for “common plan or scheme.” See Penley v. State, 506 N.E.2d 806, 809 (Ind.1987) (“The test to bring evidence of other offenses within the common plan or scheme exception is not whether the other offenses have certain elements in common with the charged crime, but whether the other offenses tend to establish a preconceived plan by which the charged crime was committed.”) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gaines v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See Gaines v. State (1988), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1058 (testimony regarding an officer's prior purchases of drugs from the defendant was admissible to show common scheme or plan). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Malone v. State
green
2 sentences1992The crimes must, therefore, be so related in character, time and place of commission as to establish some plan which embraced both the prior and subsequent criminal activity and the charged crime. 441 N.E.2d at 1347 . 1992The crimes must, therefore, be so related in character, time and place of commission as to establish some plan which embraced both the prior and subsequent criminal activity and the charged crime. 441 N.E.2d at 1347 . | 3 | 1987–1992 |
Clark v. State
green
2 sentences1989Our supreme court recently addressed the common plan or scheme exception in the case of Clark v. State, (1989) Ind. 536 N.E.2d 493 (Justices Givan and Pivarnik dissenting). 1989Our supreme court recently addressed the common plan or scheme exception in the case of Clark v. State, (1989) Ind. 536 N.E.2d 493 (Justices Givan and Pivarnik dissenting). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Porter v. State
green
1 sentence1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Foust v. State
green
1 sentence1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Armstrong v. State
green
1 sentence1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Kimmel v. State
green
1 sentence1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Willis v. State
green
2 sentences1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . 1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1982Armstrong v. State, (1982) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 647, 652 ; Foust v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 776, 778 ; Kimmel v. State, 418 N.E.2d at 1154 ; Williams v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 328, 332 ; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269, 272 ; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272 , 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Manuel v. State
green
1 sentence1979Manuel v. State, (1977) Ind., 370 N.E.2d 904 (evidence of other drug transactions tends to prove defendant’s common scheme of marijuana peddline); Ingle v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 377 N.E.2d 885 (previous drug dealings admissible to show common scheme in prosecution for conspiracy to deliver); Miller v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 733 (evidence of other sales to undercover officer admissible to show common scheme and delivery of a controlled substance). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Miller v. State
neutral
1 sentence1979Manuel v. State, (1977) Ind., 370 N.E.2d 904 (evidence of other drug transactions tends to prove defendant’s common scheme of marijuana peddline); Ingle v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 377 N.E.2d 885 (previous drug dealings admissible to show common scheme in prosecution for conspiracy to deliver); Miller v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 733 (evidence of other sales to undercover officer admissible to show common scheme and delivery of a controlled substance). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ingle v. State
green
1 sentence1979Manuel v. State, (1977) Ind., 370 N.E.2d 904 (evidence of other drug transactions tends to prove defendant’s common scheme of marijuana peddline); Ingle v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 377 N.E.2d 885 (previous drug dealings admissible to show common scheme in prosecution for conspiracy to deliver); Miller v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 733 (evidence of other sales to undercover officer admissible to show common scheme and delivery of a controlled substance). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.