Case law

Dickens v. State

754 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2001

The prosecutor disagreed that he needed to state racially-neutral reasons for the strike before Dickens established a prima facie case. … “We will uphold the trial court’s decision on the matter of discriminatory intent unless the decision is clearly erroneous.” Williams, 700 N.E.2d at 786 (citing Kent v.

In re Haughee

795 N.E.2d 450 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2003

find that this alone does not clearly and convincingly establish a violation of Admis.Dise.R. 23(26)(b). … We find that the testimony and other evidence submitted clearly and convineingly establish that by entering into the agreement to represent the woman, the respondent "undertook a new legal matter" after he had received notice

Dickerson v. State

257 Ind. 562 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1972

Since the State is responsible for establishing the isolated circumstances under which the interrogation takes place and has the only means of making available corroborated evidence of warnings given during incommunicado … A signature obtained with the instructions given by Officer Brunkhart is' clearly not sufficient to- indicate a knowing and intelligent waiver.

Royal Academy of Beauty Culture & Royal Beauty Shop, Inc. v. Wallace

226 Ind. 383 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1948

suits alleging fraud which aggregate claims exceeded $15,000; (2) Defendant’s school did not meet the requirements of the State of West Virginia for the training of students, although defendant advertised its students could qualify … The evidence clearly failed to prove insolvency. United States v. Anderson Co. (1941), 119 F. 2d 343, 345 ; Garvin, Rec. v. Chadwick Realty Corp. *387 (1937), 212 Ind. 499, 507 , 9 N. E. 2d 268 ; Chicago, etc., R.

Brown v. State

271 Ind. 129 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1979

He contends that the document was introduced merely as an attempt to establish that appellant’s earlier cooperation was voluntary. This theory is not supported by the record. … Any alleged lack of reliability can be brought out on cross-examination, and, as long as the expert is otherwise qualified, should go to weight of the evidence and not its competency.

Daniels v. State

561 N.E.2d 487 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1990

(emphasis in original). 3 The new rule established in Booth and expanded in Gathers clearly does not qualify under the first exception to non-retroac-tivity. … However, the instant case does not qualify for such consideration. . To illustrate the type of rule coming within the exception the Supreme Court has usually cited Gideon v.

Ball v. State

275 Ind. 617 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1981

The evidence clearly reveals that Ball’s confessions were given voluntarily. … Fourth, another co-owner of the Deja Vu testified that he had been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony before a Hamilton County grand jury concerning these matters.

Croxton v. Renner

103 Ind. 223 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1885

Carpenter, a resident *225 of such county, and a competent person, on the 11th day of June, 1864, was duly appointed administrator of the estate of said Eichard Colton, deceased, duly qualified as such, and that on the 7th … the settlement of such estate is finally completed and established by the judgment of the proper court.

Marriage of Myers v. Myers

560 N.E.2d 39 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1990

Husband shall pay to the Wife upon his qualifying for retirement pay from the military service and actually retiring from the military service a sum to be calculated in the following manner: Fifty percent (50%) of the retirement … These facts do not establish a substantial and continuing change in the cireum-stances.

White v. Indiana Democratic Party Ex Rel. Parker

963 N.E.2d 481 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2012

In either case, however, the language of the disqualification provision at issue in Burke “focuses on current or prospective status as the basis for disqualification,” whereas “several of the statute’s other provisions clearly … Because that necessarily required proof that the individual “would, in the future, violate the Act by becoming or remaining a candidate,” we found the disqualification was inapplicable in the post-election contest to establish

Jones v. State

780 N.E.2d 373 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2002

He argues that the evidence establishes only suspicion and possibilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. … In contrast to the very significant weight we accord the two aggravating circumstances found in this case, we conclude the aggravating circumstances clearly outweigh the mitigating circumstances.

Jeffrey A. Weisheit v. State of Indiana

109 N.E.3d 978 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 2018

Although the email clearly informed counsel that Dr. … trial counsel to decide to hire another qualified expert.”

Steiner v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

245 Ind. 410 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1964

It was just as if the Judge, without any proceedings before him, had stood up in open court and announced that he was not in favor of a certain legislative enactment and so was going to prohibit the duly qualified officers … The territorial limits of its power,- the subjects and classes over which its power may be exercised, the terms upon which it may put its power into action, are as firmly - and clearly established as the right to adjudicate

Smith v. State

217 Ind. 643 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1940

It is provided that remonstrances may be filed by landowners, and reviewers shall be appointed who shall qualify as provided by section 6 to assess *648 and report damages in favor of the remonstrators. … That instrument, together with a plat exhibiting clearly and distinctly the land conveyed to the public, was never revoked by the grantors.

Lucas v. State

552 N.E.2d 35 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1990

However, Judge Pearce failed to qualify and a second panel was appointed consisting of the Honorable Charles C. Daugherty, the Honorable David Caldwell, and the Honorable Frank P. Huse. … Although the placement of Judge Daugherty on the second panel did in fact violate Ind.R.Tr.P. 79(11), we believe that, under the authority cited by the State, such error may be waived as it was clearly and deliberately done

State Election Board v. Bayh

521 N.E.2d 1313 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1988

He voted there in every primary election, except one in 1978, and in every general election since he became a qualified voter. … We will neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses and will not set aside the fact-finding of the trial court unless it is clearly erroneous.

Martin v. State

262 Ind. 232 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 25, 1974

The chain of custody rule in Indiana requires that before an exhibit may be introduced against a defendant at trial the State must establish a link between the defendant and the exhibit and also establish the whereabouts … Clearly Wallace’s testimony is not hearsay and thus the identical fact improperly sought to be established through Shay’s testimony was properly established through Wallace’s subsequent competent testimony.

Stanley v. State

479 N.E.2d 1315 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1985

In order to qualify as newly discovered evidence capable of permitting a new trial, an affidavit must contain a statement of the facts showing (1) that the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (2) that it is material … The findings of the post-conviction court are amply supported in the record and are clearly sufficient to support the denial of post-conviction relief. The judgment is affirmed.

Bauer v. City of Indianapolis

99 Ind. 56 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1884

If any error was committed by the court in its ruling in sustaining, to the extent stated, the objection to the question propounded, which we need not decide, it was harmless, as it clearly appears by the answer of the witness … The law in such a case will afford no immunity from liability to the injured person by proof that the crossing was no more dangerous than other crossings of a similar character in the city.

Prowell v. State

687 N.E.2d 563 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1997

The trial court’s statement, although brief, adequately establishes that the court evaluated and balanced the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 4. … Thus, the issue is not whether in our judgment the sentence is unreasonable, but whether it is clearly, plainly, and obviously so.