Case law

Smith v. State

686 N.E.2d 1264 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1997

Accordingly, the court permitted Hicks to withdraw, as he was not qualified under Indiana Criminal Rule 24 to try a capital case, and appointed William G. Smock and Joseph K. Etling. … A defendant’s right to self-representation is firmly established in federal constitutional law. In the seminal case of Faretta v.

Timberlake v. State

690 N.E.2d 243 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1997

Appellate review of a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well-established. … Defendant’s final argument concerning the sentencing order is that the death penalty statute is unconstitutional because its qualifying language precludes consideration of relevant mitigating evidence.

STATE EX REL. FOX, ETC. v. LaPORTE CIR. CT.

236 Ind. 69 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1956

On June 1, 1955, the defendant filed an affidavit for a change of venue from the judge and respondent, Fleishbein, was subsequently selected and qualified. … Courts were established for the purpose of administering justice judicially, and it has been said that their powers are coequal with their duties.

Head v. State

443 N.E.2d 44 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1982

Engaging in certain penally-prohibited behavior may, of course, evidence a recklessness sufficient to establish manslaughter, or a practical certainty or intent, with respect to causing death, sufficient to establish murder … If the victim had died, Defendant clearly could have been charged and convicted of felony murder.

Wrinkles v. State

690 N.E.2d 1156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1997

_6§- Shadrick’s testimony qualifies as hearsay to the extent it was offered to prove that Debbie was fearful of defendant, and we are unable to conclude that her state of mind was relevant to an issue in this case. … The trial court’s preliminary instructions to the jury clearly delineated the charges against defendant.

Stacy Smith and Robert Smith, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Johnny Dupree Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, Inc. and Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta

Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 2014

Clearly, the affidavit was not crafted to contradict any then-existing testimony from Rus- sell. … "Unsworn statements 5 and unverified exhibits do not qualify as proper Rule 56 evidence." Indiana Univ. Med. Ctr., Ri- ley Hosp. for Children v.

Augustine v. State

461 N.E.2d 101 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1984

II Appellant next argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for murder inasmuch as the evidence clearly shows that the shooting was done in self defense. … It is generally considered that when a person’s state of mind is concerned, the jury is as well qualified to form an opinion based upon the facts presented to it as is any witness, even an expert witness.

State Ex Rel. Sekerez v. Lake Superior Court, Room 4

263 Ind. 601 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1975

They have thereby established, and are ready to continue to establish, that the right does not exist in appellees to have the petition here referred. … The right of petitioner to appeal from the part of the order contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) is clearly adequate.

State of Indiana v. John Buncich, in his capacity as Chairman of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee, Christine M. Russell, individually, Randolph Palmateer, individually

51 N.E.3d 136 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 2016

At the time of the Statute’s enactment, 130 of Lake County’s 525 precincts qualified as small, more than double that of any other county. … Instead, the statute comes before us afresh, “clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Id. (quoting Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind. 1996)).

Brown v. Grzeskowiak

230 Ind. 110 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1951

We clearly are of the opinion that, under the circumstances, the appellee is not estopped to now deny the legality and validity of these ballots. See 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, §915, p. 771; 32 C. J. … The burden of establishing the invalidity of these 211 votes was upon the party contesting them, in this case the appellee.

Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Huffman

177 Ind. 126 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1912

It is well settled that the trial court may use its discretion in granting or refusing permission to amend the pleadings, and that this court will not interfere, unless it is clearly shown that there has been an abuse of … Huffman and for the purpose of qualifying it for admission in evidence. For this purpose they were admissible.

Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Limited

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2019

First, the phrase “Kenworth Truck Company warrants directly to you” clearly qualifies as an explicit promise. … But that record citation—to an e-mail giving instructions on how to replace the engine mounts—did not establish when the engine mounts were replaced (or when Buyers learned of the breach).

Games v. State

684 N.E.2d 466 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1997

It is important to recognize that not all errors are fundamental errors: To qualify-as ‘fundamental error,’ the error must be a substantial blatant violation of *473 ■ basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant … The rule of statutory construction noted in Whalen is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative intent. Hunter, 459 U.S. at 368 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 543-44 . .

Springer v. State

209 Ind. 322 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 22, 1935

That as such superintendent of said hospital the said Elizabeth Springer was then and there and previously thereto empowered, authorized and designated by the duly elected, qualified and acting trustees of and for said county … It is clearly seen that Sherrick, as auditor, was not charged or intrusted by law with the collection of the money.

Averhart v. State

470 N.E.2d 666 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1984

Appellants Averhart and Hutson claimed there was error in permitting voir dire of the petit jury to include "death qualifying" questions that would be impermissible pursuant to Witherspoon v. … He found that clearly the defendant appreciated the criminality of his conduct.

Day v. Nottingham

160 Ind. 408 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1903

The rule is well settled that no one is in a position to demand relief upon the ground of fraud upon the part of another, unless he establishes that he has suffered an injury specially to himself. … In such a case as this, under the circumstances, a court of justice will be cautious and hesitate in granting the relief sought by the applicant, where it does not clearly appear that he is acting from good motives, and not

Woodward Insurance, Inc. v. White

437 N.E.2d 59 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1982

It clearly states that after leaving the agency, the employee was not to take part in the insurance business in Monroe County for a period of five years. … Inasmuch as White could have been fired at any time for any reason by Woodward, who would have been immune from liability, any consideration received by White in the form of continued employment, at the time the contract

Trueblood v. State

715 N.E.2d 1242 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1999

He argues that PTSD diminishes his ability to concentrate and think clearly and profoundly impacts his ability to trust individuals. … The affidavit clearly indicates that this request was in addition to any request to visit the cemetery.

Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. Burtch

192 Ind. 199 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1922

in tariffs, all rules and regulations to govern the relation between the patron and carrier;” but so far, they had been unable to state, in rules, everything so clearly as to avoid interpretation. … The witness in this case was shown to be qualified to answer the question. The question, under the circumstances of this case, was a proper one and a responsive answer was properly allowed to go to the jury. ■ 9.

Adams v. State

762 N.E.2d 737 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2002

Yet § 6331 clearly gives the Secretary or his delegate discretion as to what property to seize. … This lack of evidence as to the exigency of the circumstances is due at least in part to the fact that the Department was not required to establish exigency under the CSET collection procedures.