Indiana Supreme Court· 10/16/1992

Rouster v. State

Citations

600 N.E.2d 1342
1992 Ind. LEXIS 233
1992 WL 289556

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 ruling of the trial court will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion that is clearly prejudicial to the rights of the defendant
holding that we will not disturb a trial court’s ruling regarding final argument unless there is an abuse of this discretion that is clearly prejudicial to the rights of the defendant
“At the very least, the facts clearly show that Williams’ participation in the felonies was major and that his conduct displayed reckless indifference to human life.”
two murders; also (b)(1) (intentional killing during robbery) aggravator; death sentence affirmed
death sentence upheld under Tison where no one saw the shooting but evidence showed that two guns had been used to kill the victims and witness at time of killings overheard defendant and co-defendant threaten and verbally abuse the victims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shepard, Givan, Dickson, Krahulik, Debruler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

15 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.