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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2011A case announces a new rule of criminal procedure if “‘it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the ... [government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final,’ ... or if the result is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds....’” Id. at 1132-33 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 , and Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415 , 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1217 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)). 2011A case announces a new rule of criminal procedure if “‘it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the ... [government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final,’ ... or if the result is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds....’” Id. at 1132-33 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 , and Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415 , 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1217 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)). | 2 | 5 |
Butler v. McKellargreen2 sentences2011A case announces a new rule of criminal procedure if “‘it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the ... [government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final,’ ... or if the result is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds....’” Id. at 1132-33 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 , and Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415 , 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1217 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)). 2011A case announces a new rule of criminal procedure if “‘it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the ... [government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final,’ ... or if the result is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds....’” Id. at 1132-33 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 , and Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415 , 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1217 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Mohlergreen2 sentences2011A case announces a new rule of criminal procedure if “‘it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the ... [government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final,’ ... or if the result is ‘susceptible to debate among reasonable minds....’” Id. at 1132-33 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 , and Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 415 , 110 S.Ct. 1212, 1217 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)). 2008In that respect, Litchfield represents a new rule of criminal procedure: In general, ... a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the ... [government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final, or if the result is “susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.” State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129, 1132-33 (Ind.1998) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2007"Most courts now agree ... that a defendant is not denied a fair trial and is not entitled to a mistrial solely because he was momentarily and inadvertently seen in handcuffs by jury members.” State v. Jones, 130 N.J.Super. 596 , 328 A.2d 41, 44 (N.J.Super. 2007"Most courts now agree ... that a defendant is not denied a fair trial and is not entitled to a mistrial solely because he was momentarily and inadvertently seen in handcuffs by jury members.” State v. Jones, 130 N.J.Super. 596 , 328 A.2d 41, 44 (N.J.Super. | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (plu rality opinion), “a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government [or] ... if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.” In Daniels v. State, 561 N.E.2d 487, 489 (Ind.1990), this Court adopted for Indiana the same principles of retroactivity as those announced in Teague . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Caspari v. Bohlen
green
2 sentences2003"A conviction and sentence become final 'for purposes of retroactivity analysis when the availability of direct appeal to the state courts has been exhausted and the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has elapsed or a timely filed petition has been finally denied.'" Id. at 1133 (quoting Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 390 , 114 S.Ct. 948 , 127 L.Ed.2d 236 (1994)). 2003"A conviction and sentence become final 'for purposes of retroactivity analysis when the availability of direct appeal to the state courts has been exhausted and the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has elapsed or a timely filed petition has been finally denied.'" Id. at 1133 (quoting Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 390 , 114 S.Ct. 948 , 127 L.Ed.2d 236 (1994)). | 2 | 1998–2003 |
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.