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.
8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anthony Gammons, Jr. v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Gammons, 148 N.E.3d at 304. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Mitchell v. State, 821 N.E.2d 390, 394-99 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Hurt v. Stategreen2 sentences2004In Hurt v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1243, 1249 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), for example, the defendant challenged the propriety of a jury instruction, which provided that "[a] defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test may be considered as evidence of the defendant's guilt," on the basis that such instruction was confusing or misleading. 2004In Hurt v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1243, 1249 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), for example, the defendant challenged the propriety of a jury instruction, which provided that "[a] defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test may be considered as evidence of the defendant's guilt," on the basis that such instruction was confusing or misleading. | 1 | 1 |
Blevins v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2001Blevins v. Clark, 740 N.E.2d 1235, 1235 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Billy Russell v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2018In arguing that bifurcation was improper, Russell argued that *290 "instructing the jury on the non-existent offense of 'unlawful possession of a firearm' was prejudicial because most jurors would know that possession of a firearm, by itself, is not a criminal offense [and] jurors would infer a second phase of trial." Id. 2018We are unpersuaded that the instruction is prejudicial. [9] We observe that the Williams court's reasoning in upholding the instruction and advocating bifurcation in SVF cases was endorsed by our supreme court in Russell v. State , 997 N.E.2d 351 , 354 (Ind. 2013), which addressed a claim of improper trial bifurcation rather than the propriety of a jury instruction. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Orta v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Stevenson v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2012Co., 672 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), and the Restatement, for the propriety of a jury instruction regarding derivative punitive damages against East Lake. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Booher v. Alhom, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Booker considered the propriety of a jury instruction, which instructed the jury that if it found that the plaintiffs negligence proximately contributed to his injuries “then your verdict may be in favor of the defendant.” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.