refused instruction in Indiana

2012On appeal, our supreme court held that the defendant “was entitled to have the jury advised that the second and third counts had been dismissed.” 213 Ind. at 253 , 11 N.E.2d at 169 .

2012On appeal, our supreme court held that the defendant “was entitled to have the jury advised that the second and third counts had been dismissed.” 213 Ind. at 253 , 11 N.E.2d at 169 .

1980Co. v. Peck (1913), 53 Ind.App. 281 , 101 N.E. 674 .” In Jackman, supra, the trial court refused an instruction concerning an automobile driver’s duty to keep a lookout for other travelers on the highway.

1980Co. v. Peck (1913), 53 Ind.App. 281 , 101 N.E. 674 .” In Jackman, supra, the trial court refused an instruction concerning an automobile driver’s duty to keep a lookout for other travelers on the highway.

1975Sears urges that the “test” is that all that is required is that the instructions given substantially cover the material given in the refused instruction, and cites Leppert Bus Lines, Inc. v. Rayborn (1962), 133 Ind. App. 325 , 182 N.E.2d 260 , wherein this court stated: “There is a well settled rule of law in this state that it is not error for the trial court to refuse to give an instruction where its subject matter is adequately covered by other given instructions. . . .

1975Sears urges that the “test” is that all that is required is that the instructions given substantially cover the material given in the refused instruction, and cites Leppert Bus Lines, Inc. v. Rayborn (1962), 133 Ind. App. 325 , 182 N.E.2d 260 , wherein this court stated: “There is a well settled rule of law in this state that it is not error for the trial court to refuse to give an instruction where its subject matter is adequately covered by other given instructions. . . .

1974Fuller *371 v. State, supra; Hash v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 692 , 284 N.E.2d 770 ; DeBoor v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 87 , 182 N.E.2d 250 ; Dossett v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 446 , 307 N.E.2d 286 .

1974Fuller *371 v. State, supra; Hash v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 692 , 284 N.E.2d 770 ; DeBoor v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 87 , 182 N.E.2d 250 ; Dossett v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 446 , 307 N.E.2d 286 .

2025In that case, the trial court refused an instruction that the jury could disregard testimony if the jury determined that the witness “willfully and intentionally testified falsely to any material fact in the case.” Id. at 581 .

2023On appeal, Shirley argues that, without this language, the jury was not instructed on “how to handle the situation where [the jury] can’t determine what is pre-existing and what is aggravated or caused by the crash[.]” Appellant’s Br. p. 27. [18] In Dunn, the patient sued his physician for medical malpractice, and he appealed the judgment of $24,065 as inadequate. 516 N.E.2d at 53 .

2012The trial court refused the instruction, stating that it was no longer good law under our Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572 (Ind.2011), clarified on reh’g, 953 N.E.2d 473 (Ind.2011).

2012The trial court refused the instruction, stating that it was no longer good law under our Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572 (Ind.2011), clarified on reh’g, 953 N.E.2d 473 (Ind.2011).

2010Id. at 41 .

2009It is your duty, if it can be reasonably and conscientiously done to reconcile the evidence upon the theory that the defendant is innocent, and you cannot find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the information unless the evidence satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. 454 N.E.2d at 1222 .

2008In Adams , a criminal defendant challenged the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction, but failed to include the final jury instructions in the record; we held the defendant had waived the issue, “[a]s the final jury instructions are not included in the record on appeal, it is impossible for us to consider [the refused instruction] in reference to the other jury instructions.” Id.

2008We based this conclusion on the fact that “no single jury instruction should be evaluated separately from all the instructions given to the jury.” Id.

2002In Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), we reversed Toops' convietion for driving while intoxicated and remanded for further proceedings because the trial court refused Toops' tendered instruction on the defense of necessity.

2001According to our supreme court, "the refused instruction[] would have conveyed to the jury the belief that it *1130 had a power of nullification, which clearly it does not possess under the law." Id. at 575 .

2001The court then went on to approve an instruction almost identical to the one given by the trial court in this case. 5 Id.

2001Barnard, 719 N.E.2d at 868 .