172 Ind. App. 593 - Zarnik v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'The conviction or guilty plea of others indicted for the same offense as defendant is not substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt and generally inadmissible at the trial of the defendant. Lincoln v. State, (1921) 191 Ind. 426 , 133 N.E. 351 . However, when such evidence is introduced at trial, the resolution of the question of whether the disclosure requires reversal is dependent upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. 'Basically, whether the conduct was prejudicial is a question of fact, and, in the final analysis, each case must be determined on its own particular facts, for there is no legal standard by which the prejudicial qualities of a prosecuting attorney's remarks or conduct can be gauged, and it is only when, in the light of all the circumstances attendant upon a trial, the misconduct complained of can be said to have influenced the jury's verdict and prevented a fair trial, that prejudice results' Annot., 48 A.L.R.2d 1016 , at 1018 (1956).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Seaton v. State

2. “is not unconstitutionally vague or misleading, it is generally acceptable to give instructions in the exact language of the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Joy v. State