Skip to main content

Mays v. State

Citations

  • 907 N.E.2d 128
  • 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 3063
  • 2009 WL 1491386

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding there was little risk that a jury would place undue weight on videos replayed during deliberations because the videos had already been played in open court
  • although the confidential informant (“Cl”) did not testify at trial, the digital audio/video recording of the controlled buy was admitted into evidence through the detective pursuant to the silent-witness theory
  • although the confidential informant did not testify at trial, the audio/video recording of the controlled buy was admitted into evidence through the detective pursuant to the silent-witness theory
  • error to send video and player to jury room without monitoring use
  • although the Cl did not testify at trial, the recording of the controlled buy was admitted under the silent-witness theory; the detective testified that he personally prepared the audio/video recording equipment and then removed the equipment from the Cl immediately after the controlled buy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bailey, Barnes, Mathias

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 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.