314 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perez v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 212-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 2018Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 212-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. | 46 | 49 |
Drane v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). 2020Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). | 28 | 28 |
Bond v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 2013Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 26 | 26 |
Treadway v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1102 | November 13, 2019 Page 3 of 5 [7] Our standard of review for these types of juvenile cases is well established: “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.” Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind. 2010). 2018A.B. v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1223, 1226 (Ind. 2008). “‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.’” K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind. 2010)). | 20 | 22 |
Love v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. 2002). 2007Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind.2002). | 11 | 11 |
Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2014And when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view “[t]he evidence— even if conflicting — and all reasonable inferences drawn from it ... in a light most favorable to the conviction.” Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135 . 2014And when reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we view “[t]he evidence—even if conflicting— and all reasonable inferences drawn from it . . . in a light most favorable to the conviction.” Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135 . | 10 | 11 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). 2017See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). | 10 | 10 |
Garland v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Garland v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1236, 1238 (Ind.1999), reh'g denied. 2002Ledo v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1235, 1237 (Ind.2001); Garland v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1236, 1238 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied. | 10 | 10 |
Edward W. Clemons v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2020Clemons v. State, 987 N.E.2d 92, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 2020Clemons v. State, 987 N.E.2d 92, 95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 9 | 9 |
Anthony P. Sharp, Jr. v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2017Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512, 516 (Ind. 2015). 2017Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512, 516 (Ind. 2015). | 7 | 7 |
Ferrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2016“To sustain a conviction under a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, there must be sufficient evidence on each material element of the offense.” Ferrell v. State, 746 N.E.2d 48, 51 (Ind.2001). 2015But, “[i]n reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.” Ferrell, 746 N.E.2d at 50 . | 7 | 7 |
Lainhart v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924, 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 2013Lainhart v. State, 916 N.E.2d 924, 939 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). | 6 | 6 |
Brasher v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001). 2002See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001); Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind.2001). | 6 | 6 |
Soward v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.” Soward v. State, 716 N.E.2d 423, 425 (Ind. 1999). 2010Soward v. State, 716 N.E.2d 423, 425 (Ind.1999). | 5 | 5 |
Thornton v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Thornton v. State, 712 N.E.2d 960, 961 (Ind.1999); Hurst v. State, 699 N.E.2d 661, 654 (Ind.1998); Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 984, 941 (Ind.1998), reh’ g denied. 2000Thornton v. State, 712 N.E.2d 960, 961 (Ind.1999). | 5 | 5 |
Royce Love v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017). 2019“We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence.” Id. | 4 | 5 |
Billy Brantley v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2025Sufficient evidence supports Harroll’s conviction. [16] A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237 , 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). 2024She also claims there is insufficient evidence she aided in the commission of any of the offenses. [85] A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237 , 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). | 4 | 4 |
Gray v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Conflicting evidence is considered “in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). 2020Conflicting evidence is considered “in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). | 4 | 4 |
K.W. v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2018Appellant’s Br. p. 7. [19] “‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.’” K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind. 2010)). 2018A.B. v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1223, 1226 (Ind. 2008). “‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses.’” K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind. 2010)). | 4 | 4 |
Demetrius Walker v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2014Walker v. State, 984 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). 2013Walker v. State, 984 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 4 | 4 |
Chambliss v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001); Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind.2001). 2002See Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001); Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind.2001). | 4 | 4 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Brown v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1157, 1158 (Ind.1999). 2001Brown v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1157, 1158 (Ind.1999). | 4 | 4 |
Roy Bell v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2020“We do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim.” Id. 2020“We do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses in reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim.” Id. | 3 | 6 |
Finger v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Finger v. State, 799 N.E.2d 528, 533 (Ind. 2003). 2017See Finger v. State, 799 N.E.2d 528, 533 (Ind. 2003) (“The reasonable suspicion inquiry is highly fact-sensitive and is reviewed under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. | 3 | 4 |
Agilera v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Agilera v. State, 862 N.E.2d 298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) trans. denied. 2019Agilera v. State, 862 N.E.2d 298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) trans. denied. | 3 | 3 |
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005). 2013Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005). | 3 | 3 |
Jamrosz v. Resource Benefits, Inc.green2 sentences2012Traditionally, it has been held that “even in a civil case, a party may raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim for the first time in an appellant’s brief.” Jamrosz v. Resource Benefits, Inc., 839 N.E.2d 746, 757-58 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. 2009Benefits, Inc., 839 N.E.2d 746, 757 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied; see also In re P.C., 137 Cal.App.4th 279 , 40 Cal.Rptr3d 17, 23 (Cal.Ct.App.2006) ("The general principle of forfeiture prohibits parties from addressing on appeal issues not raised at trial. | 3 | 3 |
Heavrin v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075, 1079 (Ind.1996). 1998Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075, 1079 (Ind.1996). | 3 | 3 |
McFarland v. Scottgreen2 sentences2024We apply this deferential standard of review on appeal because a criminal trial is “the main event at which a defendant’s rights are to be determined.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172 , 1176 (Ind. 2022) (quoting McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 859 (1994)). [86] We respect the jury’s primacy to determine whether the State has met its burden of proof, and therefore consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1653 | December 20, 2024 Page 41 of 54 together with all reasonable and logical inferences that may be drawn therefrom. 2024We apply this deferential standard of review on appeal because a criminal trial is “the main event at which a defendant’s rights are to be determined.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172 , 1176 (Ind. 2022) (quoting McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 859 (1994)). [68] We respect the jury’s primacy to determine whether the State has met its burden of proof, and therefore consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict together with all reasonable and logical inferences that may be drawn therefrom. | 2 | 2 |
| Rakiea McCaskill v. State of Indianagreen | 2 | 2 |
| McHenry v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Rohr v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Fought v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re PCgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Grim v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Griffin v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Grace v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Kingery v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hurst v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Roach v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
| Davis v. State green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Joey Jennings v. State of Indiana green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Potter v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Pinkston v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Baltimore v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Martin Meehan v. State of Indiana green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Gravens v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Riehle v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.