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 1993–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boesch v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Boesch v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind.2002). 2005Therefore, even if we cannot be sure on which theory the jury found Mathews *723 guilty, he has not demonstrated that the murder instruction "constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential harm is substantial, and the resulting error [denied him] fundamental due process." Boesch, 778 N.E.2d at 1279 . | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Johnson v. State, 734 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2000) (Murder defendant was not entitled to withdraw guilty plea entered during trial, even though defendant contended that his counsel “pressured” him into accepting plea after trial court ruled in favor of admitting damaging character evidence, where trial judge questioned defendant extensively about plea, asking whether he understood that he did not have to plead guilty and specifically whether anyone threatened or induced him to enter plea, and judge informed defendant of possible range of sentences he would receive). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hobson v. State
green
1 sentence2005The court determined that the general verdict form left "no way to determine if Appellant ha[d] been convicted of intentional or felony murder," and, thus, the court could not "know if Appellant hald] been sentenced separately for both the felony and the felony murder charge." Id. at 1094 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Spradlin v. State
green
1 sentence1998However, at the time of Nuckles's direct appeal, our supreme court had not yet decided Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind.1991), the case that established the principle that renders the instant murder instruction erroneous. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ben-Yisrayl v. State
green
1 sentence1998As was the ca*se with the instruction on accomplice liability, Little failed to object to the murder instruction at trial, thereby waiving any error in that regard unless it constituted fundamental error, Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. McCormick
green
2 sentences1993This Court held in McCormick that subsection (b)(8) of the death penalty statute is unconstitutional when the other unadjudi-cated murder is unrelated to the instant murder because a defendant's due process rights are violated when he is in effect tried on the other murder claim during the penalty phase "to a jury which has been undeniably prejudiced by having convicted him of an unrelated murder." 272 Ind. at 278 , 397 N.E.2d at 280 . 1993This Court held in McCormick that subsection (b)(8) of the death penalty statute is unconstitutional when the other unadjudi-cated murder is unrelated to the instant murder because a defendant's due process rights are violated when he is in effect tried on the other murder claim during the penalty phase "to a jury which has been undeniably prejudiced by having convicted him of an unrelated murder." 272 Ind. at 278 , 397 N.E.2d at 280 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.