Vandeventer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 9 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The parties agree that the invited error doctrine exists in Indiana. They agree that as a general proposition Indiana cases hold a defendant may not profit from obtaining an erroneous instruction by thereafter claiming error. Stamper v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 211 , 294 N.E.2d 609 ; Moore v. State, (1983) Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 576 . [The defendant] even concedes the rule has been applied to the giving of a tendered included offense instruction which erroneously states that an offense is an included offense when it is not. [Citations omitted]. However, [the defendant] distinguishes those eases from cases such as this, where the so-called included offense is nonexistent. He correctly observes that in all the eases cited by the State the included offense was actually a statutorily recognized offense. He argues the invited error doctrine may not apply to convict a person of a non-existent crime. We agree.”

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

2. ““There can be no conviction for an offense not defined by statute.... Basic law pronounced by the Supreme Court is explicit; no combination of circumstances can justify the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant of a non-existent offense. A material distinction exists between application of the invited error doctrine to affirm a conviction of an included offense which is statutorily defined, though technically not an included offense, and here, where it would be used to affirm a conviction of a nonexistent offense.” Id.”

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