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 1984–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clematine Hollingsworth v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019See Hollingsworth v. State, 987 N.E.2d 1096 , 1098–99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (refusing to address whether claimed error was fundamental where defendant failed to provide any analysis of her claim of error within the context of the fundamental error rule), trans. denied. 12 It does appear, however, that Hunt was in custody, as he was placed in handcuffs immediately after opening the door to the motel room. 13 The use of a defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda warning silence is strictly prohibited, whether it is used as substantive evidence or for impeachment purposes. | 1 | 1 |
Glotzbach v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Glotzbach v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1221, 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Stategreen1 sentence2014As the Supreme Court has said, this narrow doctrine may lead to reversal where there has been a “blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind.2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oldham v. State
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 1174 . [25] Whittington also relies on Rhodes v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. 2017Id. at 1174 . [18] Burris’ comparison of his case to Oldham is inapposite. | 3 | 2016–2018 |
Rhodes v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 1174 . [25] Whittington also relies on Rhodes v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hovey v. Hovey
neutral
1 sentence2015Our court determined, “[e]ven if we were to consider the [fundamental error] issue, we do not believe that the admission of the evidence was fundamental error.” Nemer v. State, No. 82A05-1012-CR-800, 952 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. August 25, 2011). [14] When a petitioner brings an ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel’s failure to make an objection, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court would have sustained a proper objection and that failure to object resulted in prejudice. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Nelson v. State
green
1 sentence1984Lacy v. State, (1982) Ind., 438 N.E.2d 968, 970 ; Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637, 638 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lacy v. State
green
1 sentence1984Lacy v. State, (1982) Ind., 438 N.E.2d 968, 970 ; Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637, 638 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.