mitigation claim in Indiana

2021“A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

2020“A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Henderson, 769 N.E.2d at 179 (internal quotations omitted). [12] While Indiana law “mandates that the trial judge not ignore facts in the record that would mitigate an offense, and a failure to find mitigating circumstances that are clearly supported by the record may imply that the trial court failed to properly consider them,” Sherwood, 749 N.E.2d at 38 , an allegation that the trial court failed to find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish

2025“A trial court does Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-2402 | June 24, 2025 Page 16 of 19 not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight or significance.’” Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)), trans. denied. [40] And there is no evidence that Fisher suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, or, if he did, how that condition contributed to his commission of the crimes in the present case.

2016As to Ward-Bey’s participation in a medical research study that could benefit others, “[a] court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)).

2016“A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996) (quoting Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind. 1986)).

2002"A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is 'highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance." Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 4 , 8 (Ind.1996)(quoting Wilkins v. State, 500 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind.1986)).

2020Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999).

2020Carter v. State, 711 N.E.2d 835, 838 (Ind. 1999).

2025“A trial court does Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-2402 | June 24, 2025 Page 16 of 19 not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is ‘highly disputable in nature, weight or significance.’” Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Smith v. State, 670 N.E.2d 7, 8 (Ind. 1996)), trans. denied. [40] And there is no evidence that Fisher suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, or, if he did, how that condition contributed to his commission of the crimes in the present case.

2020A trial court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is “highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Rogers v. State, 878 N.E.2d 269, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied (2008).

2019“A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.” Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125, 1133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002) (internal quotations omitted)).

2015McBride v. State, 992 N.E.2d 912, 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citation omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied. “‘A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Guzman, 985 N.E.2d at 1133 (quoting Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002)).

2025When a defendant suffers from a mental illness, various factors bear on the weight, if any, that should be given to the mental illness at sentencing, including: “(1) the extent of the defendant’s inability to control his or her behavior due to the disorder or impairment; (2) overall limitations on functioning; (3) the duration of the mental illness; and (4) the extent of the nexus between the disorder or impairment and the commission of the crime.” Lewis v. State, 116 N.E.3d 1144, 1155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998)), trans. denied.

2025When a defendant suffers from a mental illness, various factors bear on the weight, if any, that should be given to the mental illness at sentencing, including: “(1) the extent of the defendant’s inability to control his or her behavior due to the disorder or impairment; (2) overall limitations on functioning; (3) the duration of the mental illness; and (4) the extent of the nexus between the disorder or impairment and the commission of the crime.” Lewis v. State, 116 N.E.3d 1144, 1155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998)), trans. denied.

2020“When a defendant offers evidence of mitigators, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the factors are mitigating, and it is not required to explain why it does not find the proffered factors to be mitigating.” Johnson v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1014, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied (2007). [27] Schaffer claims that the trial court erred by not finding six potential mitigating factors listed in Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-7.1(b): (1) the crime was the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2960 | January 29, 2020 Page 16 of 22 result of circumstances unl

2016Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934, 938 (Ind. 2008) (discussing “sudden heat” as a mitigation defense to murder and holding an unloaded weapon to be a mitigation defense to pointing a firearm).

2016In such cases, the defendant bears “only the burden of placing the issue in question where the State’s evidence has not done so.” Id.

2015McBride v. State, 992 N.E.2d 912, 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citation omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied. “‘A court does not err in failing to find mitigation when a mitigation claim is highly disputable in nature, weight, or significance.’” Guzman, 985 N.E.2d at 1133 (quoting Henderson v. State, 769 N.E.2d 172, 179 (Ind. 2002)).

2006Willis, 817 N.E.2d at 673 . "[TJhe principle of mitigation of damages addresses conduct by an injured party that aggravates or increases the party's injuries." Deible v. Poole, 691 N.E.2d 1313, 1315 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), (citations omitted), aff'd, 702 N.E.2d 1076 , 1076 (Ind.1998).

2003See Koppin v. Strode, 761 N.E.2d 455, 461 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) ("When construing a statute, the legislature's definition of a word binds us."), trans. denied. 3 In sum, where, as here, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, and the evidence supports the giving of jury instructions regarding the mitigation defense, it is proper for the jury to receive further instruction on how that defense relates to the allocation of fault. 4 Getz's reliance on Deible is misplaced, and we conclude that the evidence supports Kocher's tendered Instruction Nos. 2 and 6.

2003See Koppin v. Strode, 761 N.E.2d 455, 461 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) ("When construing a statute, the legislature's definition of a word binds us."), trans. denied. [3] In sum, where, as here, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, and the evidence supports the giving of jury instructions regarding the mitigation defense, it is proper for the jury to receive further instruction on how that defense relates to the allocation of fault. [4] Getz's reliance on Deible is misplaced, and we conclude that the evidence supports Kocher's tendered Instruction Nos. 2 and 6.

2000This Court has held that “allegations of prior criminal activity need not be reduced to conviction in order to be considered a proper aggravating factor.” Beason v. State, 690 N.E.2d 277, 281 (Ind. 1998) (citing Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539, 545 (Ind.1991) (noting that a sentencing court may properly consider as an aggravating factor prior arrests and pending charges not reduced to convictions because they reflect the defendant’s character and indicate a risk of future crime)).

2000This Court has held that "allegations of prior criminal activity need not be reduced to conviction in order to be considered a proper aggravating factor." Beason v. State, 690 N.E.2d 277, 281 (Ind. 1998) (citing Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539, 545 (Ind.1991) (noting that a sentencing court may properly consider as an aggravating factor prior arrests and pending charges not reduced to convictions because they reflect the defendant's character and indicate a risk of future crime)).

2000This Court has held that “allegations of prior criminal activity need not be reduced to conviction in order to be considered a proper aggravating factor.” Beason v. State, 690 N.E.2d 277, 281 (Ind. 1998) (citing Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539, 545 (Ind.1991) (noting that a sentencing court may properly consider as an aggravating factor prior arrests and pending charges not reduced to convictions because they reflect the defendant’s character and indicate a risk of future crime)).

2000This Court has held that "allegations of prior criminal activity need not be reduced to conviction in order to be considered a proper aggravating factor." Beason v. State, 690 N.E.2d 277, 281 (Ind. 1998) (citing Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539, 545 (Ind.1991) (noting that a sentencing court may properly consider as an aggravating factor prior arrests and pending charges not reduced to convictions because they reflect the defendant's character and indicate a risk of future crime)).