Case law

Harrison v. State

507 N.E.2d 565 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 11, 1987

The sole assignment of error is that there was a fatal variance between the information and the proof, in that the mere holding of a mortgage by the Southern Baptist Mission Board did not qualify either as ownership or a … The allegation clearly stated that the burglary cccurred at the New Mount Olive Baptist Church.

Van Orden v. State

469 N.E.2d 1153 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1984

This instruction clearly and accurately states the law and was properly given. … The burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

Penley v. State

506 N.E.2d 806 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1987

Some of these incidents qualified for admission under recognized exceptions and others did not. Admission of the latter requires reversal. … State (1981), 275 Ind. 434 , 417 N.E.2d 328 . 1 The similarities between the attack on the victim and the attack on her sister sufficiently established a modus operandi to qualify the sister's testimony as admissible to resolve

Swank v. Tyndall

226 Ind. 204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1948

While the general rule may be that the court was mistaken and the law is and always has been as expounded in the last decision, there is a well established exception. … A text writer has said: “The presumption that statutory enactments are not to be considered retrospective in their operation unless the intention so to make them clearly appears from their terms has application as well to

Long v. State

422 N.E.2d 284 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1981

It is clear that a confession is inadmissible if obtained by a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment. Ashby v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 316 , 354 N.E.2d 192 . … Defendant’s refused instruction dealt with the burden of proof the state must meet in establishing that a confession was voluntary.

Overstreet v. State

783 N.E.2d 1140 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 2003

do not think Defendant has established reversible error. … As explained in section II, Misner was qualified to present this testimony.

Cauldwell v. Curry

93 Ind. 363 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1884

There is a right of appeal in proceedings for the establishment and construction of ditches. Bryan v. Moore, 81 Ind. 9 ; Corey v. Swagger, 74 Ind. 211 ; Meehan v. Wiles, ante, p. 52. … The propositions we have stated, and the cases to which we have referred, very clearly sustain the ruling of the trial court adjudging the complaint bad. Judgment affirmed.

Sturgeon v. State

719 N.E.2d 1173 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1999

Sturgeon clearly challenged Anderson’s credibility with inconsistencies between Anderson’s prior statement and his trial testimony. … The trial judge’s decision to deny Sturgeon’s motion for change of judge was not clearly erroneous. III.

Wissman v. State

540 N.E.2d 1209 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1989

We find the totality of independent evidence presented by the State established the corpus delicti of murder. … Clearly, Dr. Swanson's testimony taken as a whole was beyond the common knowledge and experience of the average lay person. There was no error in allowing him to testify about the angle of the wound.

B.T.E. v. State of Indiana

108 N.E.3d 322 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2018

Instead, the attempt statute enables law enforcement to “minimiz[e] the risk of substantive harm without providing immunity for the offender.” Id. … Renowned jurists have long struggled with where to draw the line between mere planning and preparation, which are insufficient to establish the crime of attempt, and a substantial step, which is sufficient.

Meredith v. Pence

984 N.E.2d 1213 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 26, 2013

Moreover, in reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, “every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality unless clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Id. at 338 ; see also State v. … ends with the following directive: The General Assembly shall from, [sic] time to time, pass such laws as shall be calculated to encourage intellectual, Sci-entifical, and agricultural improvement, by allowing rewards and immunities

Knox v. State

164 Ind. 226 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1905

No purpose or intention is manifested to afford them any immunity or protection *234 from trial and punishment for any offenses committed in the state from which they flee. … evidence when the motion was made, that the several counts of the charge against appellant were founded upon the same essential facts, and . all arose from one transaction; the doctrine of election did not apply, and there was clearly

Napoli v. State

451 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1983

Horvath clearly qualifies as a competent witness under these provisions and is not disqualified under any of the categories of Ind.Code § 84-1-14-5 (Burns 1978), which describes those who shall not be competent witnesses. … State, (1974) 262 Ind. 522 , 319 N.E.2d 140 , and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to question the witness to establish it. Here, that opportunity was clearly afforded.

Rondon v. State

711 N.E.2d 506 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 25, 1999

Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause Rondon argues that the statutory exemption for mentally retarded individuals must apply retroactively to comport with the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause. … Although Rondon does not clearly develop his due process claim, it appears that he alleges a violation of substantive due process under the Federal Constitution. 12 In support of his claim, however, Rondon cites to several

Chidester v. City of Hobart

631 N.E.2d 908 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1994

. *910 Under that rule, issues covered by the special findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. T.R. 52(A). … Claypool (1896), 145 Ind. 590 , 44 N.E. 18 (limiting right of appeal to freeholders did not violate Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment or Privileges or Immunities Clause of Indiana Constitution).

Crawford v. King

54 Ind. 6 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1876

Wayne county, Indiana; that after the death of said Joseph King, on the 20th day of June, 1868, John Maxwell was duly appointed, by the clerk of Wayne common pleas court, administrator of said decedent’s estate, and was qualified … Dunn, 7 Ind. 81 , this court held the rule to be clearly established, that “where a specific lien or substantial benefit is surrendered, upon the express promise of a third person to pay a debt, it is an original undertaking

Fry, Excise Director v. Rosen

207 Ind. 409 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1934

and to a certain number of persons only authority to manufacture, sell at wholesale and import non-intoxicating alcoholic beverages in the State of Indiana, and to refuse said right and authority to other persons equally qualified … It is thoroughly established that traffic in alcoholic intoxicating beverages is a proper subject of legislative regulation under the police power of the state.

Washington v. State

390 N.E.2d 983 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1979

We have held that where oral remarks made by the court during voir dire are clearly qualified as not being instrucsion from his mental disorders is sufficient to subsequently given, there is no abuse of discretion in giving … Since the admissibility of lay witness opinion testimony on ultimate fact issues is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and the police officer's experience was clearly established, there was no error in

AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott

785 N.E.2d 1068 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2003

When a product liability action qualifies under Section 2, there is no firm statute of repose. … [Nlo physical injury has been established that necessitates the awarding of damages...."); Locke v.

Gann v. State

521 N.E.2d 330 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1988

In response to the prosecutor's questions during direct examination, Chandler stated that he did have a mental disability which qualified him for the receipt of social security benefits. … His testimony, however, showed that he knew he had been charged in this case and was not a defendant because he was given immunity of all charges if he agreed to testify.