conviction error in Indiana

2025Even if a trial court errs in its evidentiary ruling, “we will not overturn the conviction if the error is harmless.” Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. 2001) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 61; Cooley v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1277, 1282 (Ind. 1997)).

2020“Even if a trial court errs in its evidentiary ruling, ‘we will not overturn the conviction if the error is harmless.’” Griffith, 31 N.E.3d at 969 (quoting Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. 2001) (citations omitted)).

2026Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 , 4 To the extent Hollingsworth cites Williams v. State, 64 N.E.3d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we find that case distinguishable.

2012Even where the trial court has erred in admitting evidence, we will not reverse the conviction if the error does not affect the substantial rights of a party, that is, where the conviction “is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.” Id. at 1059 .

2025An error is harmless if “the probable impact of the evidence upon the jury is sufficiently minor so as not to affect a party’s substantial rights.” Appleton, 740 N.E.2d at 124 (citing Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140 , 1141–42 (Ind. 1995)).

2015An error is harmless if “the probable impact of the evidence upon the jury is sufficiently minor so as not to affect a party’s substantial rights.” Appleton, 740 N.E.2d at 124 (citing Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1141-42 (Ind.1995)).

2019Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240, 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2019Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240, 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2017An error will be viewed as harmless if the probable impact of the evidence upon the jury is sufficiently minor so as not to affect a party’s substantial rights.” Edmond v. State, 790 N.E.2d 141, 144-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citation and quotation 3 Indiana Evidence Rule 401 states, “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Indiana Evidence Rule 402 states, “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Gonzalez asserts that because the DNA evidence was in

2005Id.

2025Even if a trial court errs in its evidentiary ruling, “we will not overturn the conviction if the error is harmless.” Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. 2001) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 61; Cooley v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1277, 1282 (Ind. 1997)).

2015Even if a trial court errs in its evidentiary ruling, “we will not overturn the conviction if the error is harmless.” Appleton v. State, 740 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind.2001) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 61; Cooley v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1277, 1282 (Ind.1997)).

2012The party seeking to overcome the presumption such evidence should be excluded, here Tammy, must support her argument with “specific facts and circumstances upon which the trial court may base a finding of admissibility.” Hall v. State, 769 N.E.2d 250, 253 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2012“The party seeking to overcome the Rule 609(b) presumption of exclusion must support its probative value argument with specific facts and circumstances upon which the trial court may base a finding of admissibility.” Hall v. State, 769 N.E.2d 250, 253 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).

2004Bonner v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1139, 1141 (Ind.1995).

2002Bonner v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1139 , 1141 (Ind.1995).

2000Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207, 211 (Ind.1994).

1995Craig, 630 N.E.2d at 211 .

2026And in Snyder v. State, the appellate panel declined to read Tumulty as applying to a defendant who pled guilty “without the benefit of a plea agreement” and when, given both parties’ concession to the double-jeopardy violation, the conviction error was “unmistakable on the face of the record.” 176 N.E.3d 995 , 999– 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021); see also Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing an exception to Tumulty when a defendant pleads guilty to the charged offenses “without the benefit of a plea agreement” and when the challenged “offenses plainly arose from

2026And in Snyder v. State, the appellate panel declined to read Tumulty as applying to a defendant who pled guilty “without the benefit of a plea agreement” and when, given both parties’ concession to the double-jeopardy violation, the conviction error was “unmistakable on the face of the record.” 176 N.E.3d 995 , 999– 1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021); see also Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966, 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing an exception to Tumulty when a defendant pleads guilty to the charged offenses “without the benefit of a plea agreement” and when the challenged “offenses plainly arose from

2020In such a case, “the proper question is: did the State impermissibly use false testimony to obtain a conviction in violation of a defendant’s due process rights?” Id. at 1220.

2020We focus on “whether the jury’s ability to assess all of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses supplying those facts has been impeded to the unfair disadvantage of the defendant.” Id.

2020But that is a matter for another case.” 542 F.3d at 201 (citations omitted).

2020See id.

2020Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1268 (Ind. 2015).

2017Rohr v. State, 866 N.E.2d 242, 246 (Ind. 2007). [8] The State notes that Reid’s attorney expressly withdrew questioning about L.F.’s recantation when asked by the trial court to explain why that questioning 1 After briefing was completed in this case, we granted Reid’s appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw his appearance, which was made at Reid’s request.

2015Thomas v. State, 774 N.E.2d 33, 36 (Ind. 2002).

2015Thomas v. State, 774 N.E.2d 33, 36 (Ind.2002).

2015Teague v. State, 978 N.E.2d 1183, 1188-89 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (citing Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind.2011)).

2013Juvenile Adjudications as Criminal History Finally, Jones requests that this Court reconsider our Supreme Court’s decision in Ryle v. State, 842 N.E.2d 320, 321 (Ind. 2005), which held that juvenile adjudications 6 fall within the prior conviction exception to the general requirement that any fact used to enhance a sentence be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

2012“Only where we can state beyond a reasonable doubt that the improperly admitted evidence did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction is the error harmless.” Smith v. State, 713 N.E.2d 338, 346 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied.

2012“Only where we can state beyond a reasonable doubt that the improperly admitted evidence did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction is the error harmless.” Smith, 713 N.E.2d at 346 .

2006"We disregard errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence as harmless unless the errors affect the substantial rights of the party." Camm v. State, 812 N.E.2d 1127, 11837 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied.

2006Even if it was erroneous to admit the Liquid Fire label, "we will not reverse a conviction if the error is harmless." Jacobs v. State, 802 N.E.2d 995, 998 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).