# Wisehart v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · March 19, 1998 · 693 N.E.2d 23

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505719

## Case

- **Full name:** Mark Allen WISEHART, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 19, 1998
- **Citations:** 693 N.E.2d 23; 1998 Ind. LEXIS 26; 1998 WL 125674
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Boehm
- **Judges:** Sullivan, Boehm, Shepard, Dickson, Selby
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505719

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, “While we agree that trial counsel could have probed some of the jurors in more depth to discover their ability to be fair and impartial jurors, we do not find such failure to be deficient performance.”
- finding sufficient evidence to support instruction on accomplice liability where two police officers testified that “ ‘it was a possibility’ that [defendant] did not act alone in committing the crime.”
- finding support in the evidence for an accomplice liability instruction where there was “testimony that it was a possibility that other people may have been involved in the crime”
- holding "the political nature of appointments of public defenders" and "counsel's alleged attendant lack of independence from the trial judge" do not create a presumption of ineffective assistance based on a conflict of interest
- stating "that the decision not to make an opening statement is a matter of trial strategy and will not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”

## Opinion text

BOEHM, J.,
concurs except for part I-B-3; he nevertheless concurs in the result of part I for the reasons set forth in part I-B-l and part I-B-2.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505719. Public record. Not legal advice.