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 1975–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Smith v. State, 270 Ind. 579, 580 , 388 N.E.2d 484, 485 (1979). 1998See Smith v. State, 270 Ind. 579, 580 , 388 N.E.2d 484, 485 (1979). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faceson v. State
green
1 sentence2002In arguing his trial counsel’s performance prejudiced his defense, Robinson cites Faceson v. State, 642 N.E.2d 985 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), which held that the trial court committed reversible error when it gave the jury additional instructions on the definitions of “dealing,” “intent,” “delivery,” and “possession.” Robinson argues that his defense was prejudiced because courts have previously held that giving supplemental instructions to a jury is reversible error. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kiner v. State
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1983Purdy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 282 , 369 N.E.2d 633 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 430 , 381 N.E.2d 458 . 1983Purdy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 282 , 369 N.E.2d 633 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 430 , 381 N.E.2d 458 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Purdy v. State
green
2 sentences1983Purdy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 282 , 369 N.E.2d 633 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 430 , 381 N.E.2d 458 . 1983Purdy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 282 , 369 N.E.2d 633 ; Williams v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 430 , 381 N.E.2d 458 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Ortiz v. State
green
2 sentences1978Ind. Code § 34-1-21-6 (Bums 1973) provides: *677 See Ortiz v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 549 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 . 1978Ind. Code § 34-1-21-6 (Bums 1973) provides: *677 See Ortiz v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 549 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Caywood v. State
green
2 sentences1975Caywood v. State (1974), 160 Ind. App. 346 , 311 N.E.2d 845, 847 ; Jones v. State, supra. ISSUE 3: Beacham contends that the court’s failure to grant a mistrial after a witness for the prosecution made certain statements in the presence of the jury is reversible error. 1975Caywood v. State (1974), 160 Ind. App. 346 , 311 N.E.2d 845, 847 ; Jones v. State, supra. ISSUE 3: Beacham contends that the court’s failure to grant a mistrial after a witness for the prosecution made certain statements in the presence of the jury is reversible error. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.