6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Johnson raises this issue for the first time on appeal from his second post-conviction proceeding. -It is well settled that "issues not raised in the petition for post-conviction relief may not be raised for the first time on post-conviction appeal." Allen v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1158, 1171 (Ind.2001), reh'g denied; see also Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 8. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2012Bunch contends that the evidence is not merely impeaching because it “obliterates the testimony upon which [her] conviction was obtained,” see Wilson, 677 N.E.2d at 588 , by undercutting each of the bases on which the State‟s fire investigation witnesses premised their opinions that this was an incendiary fire. 2012Bunch contends that the evidence is not merely impeaching because it "obliterates the testimony upon which [her] conviction was obtained," see Wilson, 677 N.E.2d at 588 , by undercutting each of the bases on which the State's fire investigation witnesses premised their opinions that this was an incendiary fire. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Agurs
green
2 sentences1980The test used in United States v. Agurs, (1976) 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 , for determining when a defendant is entitled to a new trial for the State’s failure to disclose material evidence is “if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.” Aside from the due diligence proviso of the newly discovered evidence rule, there is no practical distinction between the two tests. 1980The test used in United States v. Agurs, (1976) 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 , for determining when a defendant is entitled to a new trial for the State’s failure to disclose material evidence is “if the omitted evidence creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.” Aside from the due diligence proviso of the newly discovered evidence rule, there is no practical distinction between the two tests. | 2 | 1980–1989 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1986Smith v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 956 . | 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.