Skip to main content

Buckner v. State

Citations

  • 857 N.E.2d 1011
  • 2006 Ind. App. LEXIS 2462
  • 2006 WL 3490832

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the victim’s account of a sexual attack was corroborated when physical signs consistent with the account were established by other proof
  • noting that instructional error is harmless where conviction is clearly sustained by evidence and jury could not properly have found otherwise
  • stating that incredible dubiosity rule applies to conflicts in trial testimony rather than conflicts between pretrial and trial testimony
  • stating that the incredible dubiosity rule applies to conflicts in trial testimony rather than conflicts between pretrial and trial testimony
  • concluding stun gun was deadly weapon readily capable of causing serious bodily injury where shocks left marks on victim and caused her pain
  • holding evidence sufficient to show serious bodily injury where victim testified that defendant “repeatedly struck her with his hands and fists, causing her severe pain and leaving marks on her body”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baker, Najam, Darden

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Buckner v. State

47 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.