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 1 courts 2004–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haddock v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Haddock v. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-221 | August 12, 2020 Page 10 of 15 State, 800 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). 2020Haddock v. State, 800 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [20] “Mental illness is not necessarily a significant mitigating factor; ‘rather, [it] is a mitigating factor to be used in certain circumstances, such as when the evidence demonstrates longstanding mental health issues or when the [trier of fact] finds that a defendant is mentally ill.’” Townsend v. State, 45 N.E.3d 821, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. “[I]n order for a [defendant’s] mental history to provide a basis for establishing a mitigating factor, there must be a nexus between the defendant’s mental health and the cri | 2 | 3 |
Tommy Orlando Townsend, Sr. v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Haddock v. State, 800 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [20] “Mental illness is not necessarily a significant mitigating factor; ‘rather, [it] is a mitigating factor to be used in certain circumstances, such as when the evidence demonstrates longstanding mental health issues or when the [trier of fact] finds that a defendant is mentally ill.’” Townsend v. State, 45 N.E.3d 821, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. “[I]n order for a [defendant’s] mental history to provide a basis for establishing a mitigating factor, there must be a nexus between the defendant’s mental health and the cri | 1 | 1 |
Derrick Weedman v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Haddock v. State, 800 N.E.2d 242, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [20] “Mental illness is not necessarily a significant mitigating factor; ‘rather, [it] is a mitigating factor to be used in certain circumstances, such as when the evidence demonstrates longstanding mental health issues or when the [trier of fact] finds that a defendant is mentally ill.’” Townsend v. State, 45 N.E.3d 821, 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. “[I]n order for a [defendant’s] mental history to provide a basis for establishing a mitigating factor, there must be a nexus between the defendant’s mental health and the cri | 1 | 1 |
David Williams v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014Id. at 1128-29 . “[T]he trial court is not required to give the same weight to the proffered mitigating factors as the defendant does, nor is it obligated to explain why it did not find a factor to be significantly mitigating.” Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163-64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Firestone v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Firestone, 774 N.E.2d at 115 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Devon L. Hunter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
green
1 sentence2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-315 | September 25, 2019 Page 11 of 16 appeal, a defendant must show “that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.” Hunter, 72 N.E.3d at 935 . [18] Schmidtz has not shown that the proffered mitigating factors are significant or clearly supported by the record. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Meadows v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 1128-29 . “[T]he trial court is not required to give the same weight to the proffered mitigating factors as the defendant does, nor is it obligated to explain why it did not find a factor to be significantly mitigating.” Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163-64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.