proffered jury instruction in Indiana

2020See Claire’s Boutiques, Inc. v. Brownsburg Station Partners LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1093, 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (where “the dispute is one of law rather than fact, our standard of review is de novo.”). [12] As stated above, Littleton requested the following as both a preliminary and final jury instruction: Under the law of this State, a person charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent.

2020Jury Instruction [22] Next, Floyd argues that the trial court erred by refusing to give a proffered jury instruction on the spoliation of evidence. [23] “The purpose of jury instructions is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair and correct verdict.” Dawson v. Thornton’s, Inc., 19 N.E.3d 337, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

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).

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).

2017See Lowden v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1220, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (providing that the trial court properly refused to give the defendant’s proffered jury instruction because the instruction was 2 Rajamony also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in giving Final Instruction No. 5 because it “improperly endorsed the State’s case, essentially giving the ‘okay’ to the Officer’s denial of giving [Rajamony] the ‘opportunity’ to submit to a chemical test in the events leading to this case.” Appellant’s Br. p. 33.

2015Issue Three: Jury Instruction [33] Techna-Fit next contends that the trial court ábused its discretion when it refused a proffered jury instruction which read as follows: In Indiana, statements made in. the course of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged and cannot be the basis of a claim so long as they are relevant and pertinent to the litigation and bear some relation to the litigation.111 [Chrysler Motors Corp. v, Graham, 631 N.E.2d 7, 9 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).] The only exception to this rule is where a statement is so palpably irrelevant to the subject matter of the controversy that

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).

2010As we have discussed: "The purpose of a jury instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict." Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind.2001) (quoting Chandler v. State, 581 N.E.2d 1233, 1236 (Ind.1991)).

2010As we have discussed: "The purpose of a jury instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict." Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind.2001) (quoting Chandler v. State, 581 N.E.2d 1233, 1236 (Ind.1991)).