Skip to main content

Lee v. State

Citations

  • 684 N.E.2d 1143
  • 1997 Ind. LEXIS 133
  • 1997 WL 564183

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that there is “no ground for reversal simply because one of the codefendants implicated the defendant”
  • holding that there is “no ground for reversal simply because one of the codefendants implicated the defendant”
  • holding Lee failed to show that he was prejudiced by the testimony and arguments of his co-defendants during trial such that the trials should have been separated
  • noting that when one defendant implicates another it does not require separate trials and further noting that no constitutional right to be protected from damaging evidence exists
  • delay not unreasonable since defendant was brought to trial in less than six months as required by Crim.R. 4(A)
  • failure to object to continuance below waived assertion of speedy trial right under state constitution on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sullivan, Shepard, Dickson, Selby, Boehm

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

29 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.