Antonio Smith v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that there does not need to be circumstantial evidence to “independently establish guilt” to render the rule inapplicable
• holding defendant’s due process rights were not violated when jury was fully aware through questioning by both the State and the defendant that witness’s testimony at defendant’s trial contradicted her prior testimony at her plea hearing
• noting that although three witnesses testified, without the allegedly incredibly dubious testimony of one witness, the remaining witnesses’ testimony would have been an insufficient basis for the jury to find the defendant guilty; therefore, the first factor was satisfied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).