Skip to main content

Murray v. State

Citations

  • 761 N.E.2d 406
  • 2002 Ind. LEXIS 50
  • 2002 WL 89868

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that a successful claim of incredible dubiosity must show contradictions inherent in the testimony itself rather than inconsistencies between testimony and other external sources
  • linking cross- examination regarding witness’s plea agreement to jury’s task of resolving conflicts in the evidence and determining witness credibility
  • finding the incredible dubiosity rule inapplicable even when there was a single eyewitness
  • “The fact that a witness gives trial testimony that contradicts earlier pre-trial statements does not necessarily render the trial testimony incredibly dubious.”
  • “The fact that a witness gives trial testimony that contradicts earlier pre-trial statements does not necessarily render the trial testimony incredibly dubious.”
  • “The fact that a witness gives trial testimony that contradicts earlier pre-trial statements does not necessarily render the trial testimony incredibly dubious.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rucker, Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 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.