Skip to main content

Ham v. State

Citations

  • 826 N.E.2d 640
  • 2005 Ind. LEXIS 399
  • 2005 WL 1021863

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 trial court erred when it instructed the jury that a defendant’s “refusal to submit to a chemical test may be considered as evidence of intoxication”
  • disapproving instruction stating, “A [D]efendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test may be considered as evidence of intoxication” in part because it “unnecessarily emphasiz[ed] one evidentiary fact”
  • instructions that unnecessarily emphasize one particular evidentiary fact, witness, or phase of a case have long been disapproved
  • “Whether a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test is evidence of intoxication or merely that the defendant refused to take the test is for the lawyers to argue and the jury to decide.”
  • jury instruction improperly highlighted fact defendant refused to take chemical test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, Rucker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 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.