7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Ground v. State, 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) (noting, "of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 NE2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defendant's] guilt, we determine that the excluded evidence's probable impact on the jury, in light of the evidence in the case, affected [the defendant's] substantial right 2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen | 3 | 3 |
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“The test for harmless error is not whether there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt but whether the error contributed to the verdict.” Id. at 397 . 2014“The test for harmless error is not whether there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt but whether the error contributed to the verdict.” Id. at 397 . | 2 | 3 |
Saperito v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Ground v. State, 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) (noting, "of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 NE2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defendant's] guilt, we determine that the excluded evidence's probable impact on the jury, in light of the evidence in the case, affected [the defendant's] substantial right 2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen | 2 | 2 |
Ground v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Ground v. State, 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) (noting, "of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 NE2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defendant's] guilt, we determine that the excluded evidence's probable impact on the jury, in light of the evidence in the case, affected [the defendant's] substantial right 2003The sufficiency of the evidence test seeks to determine if substantial evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 702 N.E.2d 728 , 733 n. 4 (Ind.App.1998); see also Saperito v. State, 490 N.E.2d 274, 278 (Ind.1986) ("of course, the test for harmless error is not whether the evidence was sufficient without the offending testimony, but whether the testimony might have had a substantial effect on the verdict"); Griffin v. State, 664 N.E.2d 373, 377 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ("while there may exist substantial evidence of [the defen | 1 | 2 |
Tyson v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Tyson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 715, 717-18 (Ind.2002). 2003Tyson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 715, 717-18 (Ind.2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. State
green
2 sentences1986White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N.E.2d 312 . 1986White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64 , 272 N.E.2d 312 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.