47 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seling v. Younggreen1 sentence2026As our concurring colleague Justice Slaughter points out, the outcome of the intent-effects test under federal law depends on “what the statute says” rather than “how authorities implement the disputed statute.” Post, at 2 (Slaughter, J., concurring in part and in the judgment) (citing Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 261 (2001)). | 1 | 1 |
True v. Stategreen2 sentences2023The True court echoed the Watts Court’s observations regarding the potential impact of a lesser included instruction on a defendant’s “all or nothing” strategy, stating that “such a defense can be improperly undermined by the State obtaining a lesser included offense instruction where the evidence does not warrant such an instruction[.]” Id. at 1110 (emphasis added). 2023Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2955 | October 26, 2023 Page 16 of 26 deprives the defendant of the opportunity to pursue a legitimate trial strategy. 885 N.E.2d at 1233 (emphases added). [32] A few years later, this court, in True v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), addressed the propriety of an instruction for Class A misdemeanor battery as a lesser included of Class D felony domestic battery, being given at the State’s request and over the defendant’s objection. | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2955 | October 26, 2023 Page 16 of 26 deprives the defendant of the opportunity to pursue a legitimate trial strategy. 885 N.E.2d at 1233 (emphases added). [32] A few years later, this court, in True v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), addressed the propriety of an instruction for Class A misdemeanor battery as a lesser included of Class D felony domestic battery, being given at the State’s request and over the defendant’s objection. | 1 | 1 |
Nathan Brock v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019Only when there was no consent (actual or implied) do we then consider “the propriety of defense counsel’s comments” and whether any “improper comments constituted a manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial.” Brock, 955 N.E.2d at 204, 206 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of F.S., T.W., M.F., and B.F. (Minor Children) v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services for Crawford Countygreen1 sentence2018See In re F.S. , 53 N.E.3d 582 , 596 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Ware v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167, 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, 1178 (Ind. 2011) (finding waiver because the defendant never objected to the instructions given or offered an instruction of his own). | 1 | 1 |
Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014(App’x at 100.) Cochran did not challenge the adequacy of the instruction at trial; failure to object to an instruction at trial waives the propriety of the instruction for appellate review, Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind. 2013), and we presume the jury to have followed the trial court’s instructions. | 1 | 1 |
Castetter v. Townshipgreen1 sentence2013“When the principal questions in issue have ceased to be matters of real controversy between the parties, the errors assigned become moot questions, and we will not retain jurisdiction to decide them.” Castetter v. Lawrence Twp., 959 N.E.2d 837, 842 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). | 1 | 1 |
McCann v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See McCann v. State, 854 N.E.2d 905 , 909 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“While it is true that McCann waived any freestanding claim of error by failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, he may nevertheless challenge the propriety of the instruction in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Williams v. State, 433 N.E.2d 769, 771 (Ind. 1982).. | 1 | 1 |
Lashbrook v. Stategreen1 sentence2008That result suggests Woods, unlike Cooper, had an evidentiary hearing; a "trial court ruling excluding evidence " may not be challenged on appeal unless "the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by a proper offer of proof[.]" Lashbrook v. State, 762 N.E.2d 756, 758 (Ind.2002) (emphasis supplied). [6] The hearing on the motion to reconsider was not a remedy for the deprivation of due process because there the burden of proof was shifted from the State to Cooper. | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Williamson v. State, 798 N.E.2d 450, 452-53 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (addressing appellant's double jeopardy claim), trans. denied (2004). [2] We note that prior to McCann's trial, our supreme court stated that "the tender of a proposed alternative instruction is not necessarily required to preserve the claim of error." Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Ind.1998). [3] Although McCann's counsel raised intent as an issue at trial, McCann himself twice interrupted the proceedings to assert that someone else had committed the charged crimes. 2006See Williamson v. State, 798 N.E.2d 450, 452-53 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (addressing appellant's double jeopardy claim), trans. denied (2004). . | 1 | 1 |
Scisney v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Williamson v. State, 798 N.E.2d 450, 452-53 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (addressing appellant's double jeopardy claim), trans. denied (2004). [2] We note that prior to McCann's trial, our supreme court stated that "the tender of a proposed alternative instruction is not necessarily required to preserve the claim of error." Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Ind.1998). [3] Although McCann's counsel raised intent as an issue at trial, McCann himself twice interrupted the proceedings to assert that someone else had committed the charged crimes. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., Jones v. State (1986), Ind., 491 N.E.2d 980 . | 1 | 1 |
Santini v. Consolidated Rail Corp.green1 sentence1988Cf., Groves v. First National Bank of Valparaiso (1988), Ind.App., 518 N.E.2d 819, 824 (failure to object to instruction about attorney fee provision of purchase agreement precluded raising the issue in the motion to correct errors and waived the issue on appeal); and Santini v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 832, 840 (allegation in-inincorrectly stated measure of damages was not preserved where no objection was made). | 1 | 1 |
Groves v. First National Bank of Valparaisogreen1 sentence1988Cf., Groves v. First National Bank of Valparaiso (1988), Ind.App., 518 N.E.2d 819, 824 (failure to object to instruction about attorney fee provision of purchase agreement precluded raising the issue in the motion to correct errors and waived the issue on appeal); and Santini v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 832, 840 (allegation in-inincorrectly stated measure of damages was not preserved where no objection was made). | 1 | 1 |
| Kleinrichert v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Papp v. City of Hammondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Summers v. State
green
2 sentences1979We do not necessarily limit the determinative factors to those stated above but we suggest them only as guidelines, any one of which might be determinative of the propriety for waiver in a given case.” [Citations omitted.] Summers v. State, supra, 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320, 325-26 . 1979We do not necessarily limit the determinative factors to those stated above but we suggest them only as guidelines, any one of which might be determinative of the propriety for waiver in a given case.” [Citations omitted.] Summers v. State, supra, 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320, 325-26 . | 4 | 1974–1979 |
New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll
green
2 sentences1969Therefore, the issue becomes whether or not the lower court might have amended the complaint to conform to the evidence.’ General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. La Salle Realty Corp. (1966), 141 Ind. App. 247 , 218 N. E. 2d 141, 144 .” The matter was fully discussed in New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind. App. 264 , at page 266, 204 N. E. 2d 220 , [Transfer denied February 6, 1967.], at page 222: “The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law rele 1969Therefore, the issue becomes whether or not the lower court might have amended the complaint to conform to the evidence.’ General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. La Salle Realty Corp. (1966), 141 Ind. App. 247 , 218 N. E. 2d 141, 144 .” The matter was fully discussed in New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind. App. 264 , at page 266, 204 N. E. 2d 220 , [Transfer denied February 6, 1967.], at page 222: “The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law rele | 3 | 1969–1975 |
Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the 1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the | 2 | 1969–1975 |
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. DeArk
green
2 sentences1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N. E. 2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: “The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial, (citations omitted) “In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from t 1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N. E. 2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: “The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial, (citations omitted) “In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from t | 2 | 1965–1969 |
Indiana Railway Co. v. Maurer
neutral
2 sentences1965Public Service Co. v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353, 360 , 92 N. E. 2d 723 ; Indiana Ry Co. v. Maurer (1903), 160 Ind. 25 , 66 N. E. 156 ; Fields v. Hahn (1944), 115 Ind. App. 365 , 57 N. E. 2d 955 (transfer denied). 1965Public Service Co. v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353, 360 , 92 N. E. 2d 723 ; Indiana Ry Co. v. Maurer (1903), 160 Ind. 25 , 66 N. E. 156 ; Fields v. Hahn (1944), 115 Ind. App. 365 , 57 N. E. 2d 955 (transfer denied). | 2 | 1938–1965 |
Robbins v. Diggins
neutral
2 sentences1909As was said in Robbins v. Diggins (1889), 78 Iowa 521 , 43 N. W. 306 , in considering the propriety of an instruction to the effect that the plaintiff must prove the allegation of negligence as laid: ‘ The defendants are liable if they negligently ran upon and injured the plaintiff. 1909As was said in Robbins v. Diggins (1889), 78 Iowa 521 , 43 N. W. 306 , in considering the propriety of an instruction to the effect that the plaintiff must prove the allegation of negligence as laid: ‘ The defendants are liable if they negligently ran upon and injured the plaintiff. | 2 | 1906–1909 |
Womack v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 325-26 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Dill v. State
green
2 sentences2007In the first of these, Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind.2001), the court held that it was error to instruct the jury that a defendant's flight after the commission of a crime, although not proof of guilt, may be considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt. 2007In the first of these, Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind.2001), the court held that it was error to instruct the jury that a defendant’s flight after the commission of a crime, although not proof of guilt, may be considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences1991Likewise, intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, White v. State (1986), Ind., 495 N.E.2d 725 , and the evidence recited above is more than adequate to show that appellant intended to aid the other three inmates by his actions. 1991Likewise, intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, White v. State (1986), Ind., 495 N.E.2d 725 , and the evidence recited above is more than adequate to show that appellant intended to aid the other three inmates by his actions. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wedmore v. State
green
1 sentence1990In Wedmore v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 546 , this Court set out the test for determining the propriety of an instruction on a lesser included offense. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Dipert v. State
green
2 sentences1988Instruction No. 40 was also considered to be a correct statement of the law from 1964 until 1972 when this court disapproved it in Dipert v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 260 , 286 N.E.2d 405 . 1988Instruction No. 40 was also considered to be a correct statement of the law from 1964 until 1972 when this court disapproved it in Dipert v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 260 , 286 N.E.2d 405 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Sharp v. Jones
green
1 sentence1988Because appellants may appeal only those errors properly raised and preserved in the trial court, Sharp v. Jones (1986), Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 593, 597 , and because no objection was made to the in-inrequiring the jury to find Brown “100% at fault” we do not consider the propriety of the instruction. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Newman v. State
green
1 sentence1987Newman v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 58, 61 ; Kelley v. State (1984), Ind., 4170 N.E.2d 1322 , 1326. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Lawrence v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Trotter v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| McDaniel v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Kho v. Pennington green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Gardner v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Winston v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Lewis v. State red | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Harrington v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Silva v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Sansom v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Elmore v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Abel v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Underwood v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Murphy v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Guffey v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| King v. State neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| German v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Bradberry v. State green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company v. Hood neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Jump green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Stillwell v. Adams neutral | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Coffin v. United States green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Bronson v. Club Comanche, Inc. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Kent v. United States green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Atkins v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| CITY OF EVANSVILLE, IND. v. Cunningham neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.