Skip to main content

Fry v. State

Citations

  • 748 N.E.2d 369
  • 2001 Ind. LEXIS 485
  • 2001 WL 623292

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 State offered the evidence of a scheme to steal a television involving the defendant and one of the victims to show the defendant’s motive for killing the victims and that the admission of the evidence did not violate Ind. Evidence Rules 404(b) or 403
  • evidence of motive always relevant in proof of crime, and defendant’s prior actions with respect to victim usually admissible to show relationship between the two
  • “In proving the agreement element, the State is not required to show an express formal agreement, and proof of the conspiracy may rest entirely on circumstantial evidence.”
  • “Although the trial court did not make a specific finding on the balance of prejudice and probative value, it did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403.”
  • “Because the trial court merged the robbery conviction into the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction, here we do not separately address the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to the robbery conviction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boehm, Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Rucker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.