Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

683 N.E.2d 1329

Mauricio v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 4, 1997

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1997-08-04

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2011

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“tender [of the involuntary manslaughter instruction] to the trial court was proper and adequate.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ketcham v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-08-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GARRARD, Judge,

¶1concurring and dissenting.

¶2I concur with the majority except for its determination that under the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure it is not an adequate tender of one of the pattern jury instructions to simply refer to it in the manner set forth in T.R. 51(E). I would find that the tender to the trial court was proper and adequate.

¶3On the other hand, the purposes to be met by setting forth verbatim, in appellate briefs, instructions tendered by the parties are distinct and meaningful. The requirement to do so is, also, specifically imposed by both T.R. 51(E) and A.R. 8.3(A). Thus, any potential error was waived for failure to set forth the requested instruction in the brief.5

¶4*1334I therefore concur, except as to the issue of adequate tender of pattern jury instructions in a criminal ease, and on that issue I join the dissent.

¶5. It should be recalled that pattern instructions are not per se correct statements of the law.

/683/ne2d/1329 · .json · Public domain