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.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2019In Johnson, which was an appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, the Indiana Supreme Court held that Johnson’s attorney had not rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an immediate limiting instruction after Johnson’s accomplice invoked his Fifth Amendment right in the presence of the jury. 719 N.E.2d 812, 815 (Ind. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Owens v. State, 659 N.E.2d 466, 476 (Ind.1995). "[Tlhat assurance may arise from an immediate limiting instruction or from the sketchiness of the testimony itself." Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., 13 PracticE § 801.303 at 502 (2d ed. 1995) (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 163 . 2014Id. at 163 . | 2 | 2014–2019 |
Goodson v. State
green
2 sentences2012Goodson, 747 N.E.2d at 1185 . “[T]hat assurance may arise from an immediate limiting instruction or from the sketchiness of the testimony itself.” Id. 2012Goodson, 747 N.E.2d at 1185 . “[T]hat assurance may arise from an immediate limiting instruction or from the sketchiness of the testimony itself.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Aubrey v. State
green
2 sentences1999Relying on Aubrey v. State, 261 Ind. 692 , 310 N.E.2d 556 (1974), and Tucker v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.1989), Johnson seeks to make this failure a per se finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. 1999Relying on Aubrey v. State, 261 Ind. 692 , 310 N.E.2d 556 (1974), and Tucker v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.1989), Johnson seeks to make this failure a per se finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Tucker v. State
green
1 sentence1999Relying on Aubrey v. State, 261 Ind. 692 , 310 N.E.2d 556 (1974), and Tucker v. State, 534 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.1989), Johnson seeks to make this failure a per se finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.