Ruben Rosales v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that inaccurate instruction on mens rea of accomplice liability for attempted murder was fundamental error because State’s closing argument repeatedly, and incorrectly, told the jury that specific intent to kill was not required
• explaining when an erroneous jury instruction is specifically argued to the jury, it is not harmless error
• explaining attempted murder is “singled out . . . for special treatment” because of “the stringent penalties for attempted murder and the ambiguity often involved in its proof”
• reversing attempted murder conviction, holding error in jury instruction was a fundamental error due to prosecution’s repeated reliance on the inaccurate instruction, including telling the jury that specific intent to kill was not required
• “[T]he mere possibility of prejudice … from the inaccurate instruction does not justify reversal of [a] conviction without a showing that [the defendant] incurred actual prejudice.”
• conviction for attempted murder requires proof of specific intent to kill

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).