Indiana Supreme Court· 5/29/1997

Humphrey v. State

Citations

680 N.E.2d 836
1997 Ind. LEXIS 62
1997 WL 281408

How courts have described this case

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

holding that Ind. Evidence Rule 105 “means what it says and that by failing to request an admonition Humphrey has waived any error based on the absence of an admonition”
discussing that “classic hearsay” is not ordinarily admissible as substantive evidence
stating that “[t]he State’s case was wholly circumstantial and would have been extremely thin if Brooks’ statement had not been before the jury as substantive evi- dence. . . . Smith’s testimony placed the defendant at the scene on the night of the killing . . . .”
[W]e hold that Rule 105 means what it says and that by failing to request an admonition [the defendant] has waived any error based on the absence of an admonition.
failure to object or request proper admonishment as to limited admissibility of evidence results in waiver of error on appeal
the onus for securing a limiting instruction is on the parties, and a defendant's failure to request an admonition waives any error based upon the absence of such an admonition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boehm, Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Selby

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

35 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.