7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bruce Ryan v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667-68 (Ind. 2014) (emphasis added, citations and footnotes omitted). [15] Here, Hallman makes thorough and cogent argument on the question of prosecutorial misconduct, but his argument on the question of fundamental error is woefully inadequate, and he has waived this issue for our review. | 1 | 1 |
Benson v. Stategreen1 sentence2007But for prosecutorial misconduct to constitute fundamental error, it must also “ ‘make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process [and] present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’ ” Id. (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind.2002)): With regard to the changes in Dominick’s and Connie’s testimony, we need not reach the question of fundamental error because we conclude that the prosecutor did not commit any misconduct. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See Miller v. State (1993) Ind.App., 616 N.E.2d 750 , 751 n. 3. 14 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott A. Hall v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020Hall, 108 N.E.3d at 355 . [26] On appeal, Dixon makes thorough and cogent argument on the question of whether the delay violated his constitutional rights, but his argument on the question of fundamental error is inadequate, and he has waived this issue for our review. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Coleman v. State
green
1 sentence2007But for prosecutorial misconduct to constitute fundamental error, it must also “ ‘make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process [and] present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’ ” Id. (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind.2002)): With regard to the changes in Dominick’s and Connie’s testimony, we need not reach the question of fundamental error because we conclude that the prosecutor did not commit any misconduct. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mueller v. State
green
2 sentences1994In a footnote the majority cites Mueller v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 788 and Heald v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 671 for the proposition that when the evidence indicates a direct attack by the defendant reckless homicide cannot be an included offense to murder. 1994In a footnote the majority cites Mueller v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 788 and Heald v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 671 for the proposition that when the evidence indicates a direct attack by the defendant reckless homicide cannot be an included offense to murder. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Heald v. State
green
2 sentences1994In a footnote the majority cites Mueller v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 788 and Heald v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 671 for the proposition that when the evidence indicates a direct attack by the defendant reckless homicide cannot be an included offense to murder. 1994In a footnote the majority cites Mueller v. State (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 788 and Heald v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 671 for the proposition that when the evidence indicates a direct attack by the defendant reckless homicide cannot be an included offense to murder. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hall v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986I dissent to denial of rehearing in this case, 482 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind.App.1985), and would raise a question of fundamental error. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bryant v. State
green
2 sentences1975Bryant v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 172 , 301 N.E.2d 179 ; Easton v. State, supra. Its violation does not, then, present a question of fundamental error. 1975Bryant v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 172 , 301 N.E.2d 179 ; Easton v. State, supra. Its violation does not, then, present a question of fundamental 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.