Indiana Supreme Court· 2/26/2004

Dumas v. State

Citations

803 N.E.2d 1113
2004 Ind. LEXIS 164
2004 WL 350995

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 prosecutor “was entitled to counter with argument that the witness was not lying and had no reason to do so”
finding that although defendant promptly objected, they waived their prosecutorial misconduct for failing to seek admonishment or mistrial
finding that Dumas’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct was waived because Dumas neither requested an admonishment nor moved for mistrial
determining that Dumas’ claim of prosecutorial misconduct was waived because Dumas neither requested an admonishment nor moved for mistrial
explaining that a prosecutorial misconduct argument is waived when the defendant objected but did not request an admonishment or move for a mistrial
noting that where defendant asserted that State’s key witness was lying, the “prosecutor was entitled to counter with argument that the witness was not lying . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rucker, Shepard, Dickson, Boehm, Sullivan, State

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.