proffered factors in Indiana

2006"When a defendant offers evidence of mitigators, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is not required to explain why it does not find the proffered factors to be mitigating." Id.

2006"When a defendant offers evidence of mitigators, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is not required to explain why it does not find the proffered factors to be mitigating." Id.

2020“When a defendant offers evidence of mitigators, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is not required to explain why it does not find the proffered factors to be mitigating.” Johnson v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1014, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (2007). [27] Schaffer claims that the trial court erred by not finding six potential mitigating factors listed in Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-7.1(b): (1) the crime was the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2960 | January 29, 2020 Page 16 of 22 result of circumstances unl

2019Gipson argues that, when sentencing him, the court did not consider his "traumatic injury." (Br. of Appellant at 9.) "When a defendant offers evidence of mitigators, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is not required to explain why it does not find the proffered factors to be mitigating." Johnson v. State , 855 N.E.2d 1014 , 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied .

2018Taylor v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1105, 1112 (Ind. 1997).

2016Taylor v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1105, 1112 (Ind. 1997).

2012Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

2006Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 707, 710 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied.

2018Wal-mart Stores, Inc. , 774 N.E.2d at 893 . [8] In this regard, Krohn contends that Final Instruction 4/23 was a burden-shifting and mandatory instruction.

2007See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 N.E.2d at 893 .

2007Bocko v. State, 769 N.E.2d 658, 667 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), reh’g denied, trans. denied 783 N.E.2d 702 (Ind.2002).

2004"When a defendant offers evidence of miti-gators, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is not required to explain why it *761 does not find the proffered factors to be mitigating." Id.

2018Carter v. State, 766 N.E.2d 377, 382 (Ind. 2002).

2017See McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 764 (providing that in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a proffered instruction, we consider whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given); Lowden, 51 N.E.3d at 1224 (providing that the trial court properly refused to give the defendant’s proffered jury instruction because the instruction was not a correct statement of the law).

2017See, e.g., Kimbrough, 55 N.E.3d at 334 .

2017Under these circumstances, I would find that the issue was preserved for appellate review. [13] Even if the objection was insufficient to preserve the issue, however, I would find that the erroneous jury instruction constituted fundamental error because it was “so prejudicial to the rights of a defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Rosales v. State, 23 N.E.3d 8, 11 (Ind. 2015).

2017See McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 764 (providing that in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a proffered instruction, we consider whether the substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given); Lowden, 51 N.E.3d at 1224 (providing that the trial court properly refused to give the defendant’s proffered jury instruction because the instruction was not a correct statement of the law).

2015Id. (citing Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 394 (Ind. 2001)).

2015“However, an error in the giving or refusing of an instruction is harmless where a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-CR-807 |June 18, 2015 Page 16 of 17 could not properly have found otherwise.” Snell, 866 N.E.2d at 399 (citing Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind. 2001)). [30] As we concluded above, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Tyler’s conviction for disorderly conduct.

2015See Santiago, 985 N.E.2d at 763; Albores, 987 N.E.2d at 100-02 .

2013Patterson v. State, 846 16 N.E.2d 723, 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

2013On appeal, this court recognized that the Indiana Supreme Court has previously held where a defendant requests an instruction “which advises the jury that the presumption of innocence prevails until the close of the trial, and that it is the duty of the jury to reconcile the evidence upon the theory of the defendant’s innocence if they could do so, must be given if requested.” Id. (quoting Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221, 1222 (Ind. 1983) (citing Farley v. State, 127 Ind. 419 , 26 N.E. 898 (1891); Simmons v. State, 179 Ind. App. 342 , 385 N.E.2d 225 (1979))).

2012Widener v. State, 659 N.E.2d 529, 533 (Ind.1995).

1998Courts—including ours—have rejected these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by observing that such defenses likely would have been counter-productive because they would conflict with the proffered defense of actual innocence. [19] See Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188 , 203-04 *39 (Ind.1997); Meredith v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1309, 1312 (Ind.1997).

1998Courts — including ours — have rejected these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by observing that such defenses likely would have been counter-productive because they would conflict with the proffered defense of actual innocence. 19 See Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 203-04 (Ind.1997); Meredith v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1309, 1312 (Ind.1997).

1998See also Weeks v. Jones, 26 F.3d 1030, 1039 (11th Cir.1994); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1993); State v. Garrett, 182 W.Va. 166 , 386 S.E.2d 823, 830 (1989); Commonwealth v. Mizell, 493 Pa. 161 , 425 A.2d 424, 426 (1981).

1998See also Weeks v. Jones, 26 F.3d 1030, 1039 (11th Cir.1994); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1993); State v. Garrett, 182 W.Va. 166 , 386 S.E.2d 823, 830 (1989); Commonwealth v. Mizell, 493 Pa. 161 , 425 A.2d 424, 426 (1981).

1998Courts—including ours—have rejected these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by observing that such defenses likely would have been counter-productive because they would conflict with the proffered defense of actual innocence. [19] See Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188 , 203-04 *39 (Ind.1997); Meredith v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1309, 1312 (Ind.1997).

1998Courts — including ours — have rejected these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by observing that such defenses likely would have been counter-productive because they would conflict with the proffered defense of actual innocence. 19 See Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 203-04 (Ind.1997); Meredith v. State, 679 N.E.2d 1309, 1312 (Ind.1997).