challenge to a jury instruction in Indiana

2017When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we will “considers whether the instruction correctly states the law, whether there was evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, and whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions . . . .” Hubbard v. State, 742 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind. 2001) (internal citations omitted).

2016Hubbard v. State, 742 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind. 2001). [12] In addition, in order to obtain reversal, a defendant must demonstrate that the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions prejudiced his substantial rights.

2013Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), trans. denied.

2013Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), trans. denied.

2013Additionally, in reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we must consider “whether the instruction correctly states the law, whether there was evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, and whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions.” Sherwood v. State, 702 N.E.2d 694, 698 (Ind. 1998).

2003Additionally, in reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, "this Court considers whether the instruction correctly states the law, whether there was evidence in the record to support the giving of the instruction, and whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions." Sherwood v. State, 702 N.E.2d 694, 698 (Ind.1998).

2019Boney v. State, 880 N.E.2d 279, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

2014Id.

2020Thomas v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1198, 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

2019Thomas v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1198, 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. [21] Meredith contends that the trial court’s preliminary and final instructions were inconsistent because the trial court preliminarily instructed the alternate that it could participate in discussions with jurors during recesses but that it issued a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1332 | December 11, 2019 Page 12 of 18 final instruction that the alternate juror could not participate in discussions until instructed to do so.

2013An improper instruction will merit reversal only if it “so affects the entire charge that the jury was misled as to the law in the case.” White v. State, 547 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 1989).

2003Id.

2012Id.

2007Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind.2006).

2023When reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we consider: “(1) whether the instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there is evidence in the record to support the giving of the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-1133 | July 17, 2023 Page 13 of 17 instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions which are given.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 408 (Ind. 2000).

2019Filice v. State, 886 N.E.2d 24, 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted), trans. denied. [37] In reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction, we consider: (1) whether the instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) whether there was evidence in the record to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the substance of the instruction is covered by other instructions given by the court.

2017Brooks v. State, 895 N.E.2d 130, 132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

2013Id. “[A]n instruction directed to the testimony of one witness erroneously invades the province of the jury when the instruction intimates an opinion on the credibility of a witness or the weight to be given to his testimony.” Pope v. State, 737 N.E.2d 374, 378 (Ind.2000).

2004Cowan v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1270, 1276 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. dened, 792 N.E.2d 45 .