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 1895–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Benson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016As stated above, since Griffith did not object to the witnesses hearing opening statements, he must now prove fundamental error by showing the alleged violation was “so prejudicial to [his] rights as to ‘make a fair trial impossible.’” Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind.2014) (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Bruce Ryan v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2016As stated above, since Griffith did not object to the witnesses hearing opening statements, he must now prove fundamental error by showing the alleged violation was “so prejudicial to [his] rights as to ‘make a fair trial impossible.’” Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind.2014) (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Slaton v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Slaton v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1343, 1347 (Ind.1987) (stating that "[s]uch is the sole province of the trial court"), cert. denied (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Thornton v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Standifer correctly points out that “[t]he partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Thornton v. State, 712 N.E.2d 960, 963-64 (Ind.1999) (defendant must be afforded opportunity to conduct cross-examination of the State’s witnesses to test their believability). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2015Moore subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR”), in which he alleged that the State withheld material impeachment evidence relating to one of the State’s witnesses in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1999Standifer correctly points out that “[t]he partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Thornton v. State, 712 N.E.2d 960, 963-64 (Ind.1999) (defendant must be afforded opportunity to conduct cross-examination of the State’s witnesses to test their believability). 1999Standifer correctly points out that “[t]he partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 316 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Thornton v. State, 712 N.E.2d 960, 963-64 (Ind.1999) (defendant must be afforded opportunity to conduct cross-examination of the State’s witnesses to test their believability). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McDonough v. State
green
2 sentences1970Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566 , 230 N. E. 2d 416 ; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376 , 175 N. E. 2d 418 ; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227 , 141 N. E. 323 . 1970Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566 , 230 N. E. 2d 416 ; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376 , 175 N. E. 2d 418 ; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227 , 141 N. E. 323 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Pritchard v. State
green
2 sentences1970Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566 , 230 N. E. 2d 416 ; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376 , 175 N. E. 2d 418 ; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227 , 141 N. E. 323 . 1970Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566 , 230 N. E. 2d 416 ; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376 , 175 N. E. 2d 418 ; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227 , 141 N. E. 323 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Bohan v. State
neutral
2 sentences1970Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566 , 230 N. E. 2d 416 ; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376 , 175 N. E. 2d 418 ; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227 , 141 N. E. 323 . 1970Pritchard v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 566 , 230 N. E. 2d 416 ; McDonough v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 376 , 175 N. E. 2d 418 ; Bohan v. State (1942), 194 Ind. 227 , 141 N. E. 323 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Densmore v. State
green
1 sentence1895The case of Densmore v. State, 67 Ind. 306 , is not in conflict with this charge. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.