Skip to main content

Stafford v. State

Citations

  • 736 N.E.2d 326
  • 2000 Ind. App. LEXIS 1585
  • 2000 WL 1512362

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that trial court's failure to specifically instruct jury that State was required to prove confinement without consent was not fundamental error, where instructions together as a whole adequately informed jury that victim must not consent to confinement
  • relying on Hernandez v. State , 716 N.E.2d 948 , 955 (Ind. 1999) (Boehm, J., dissenting), reh'g denied
  • finding a double jeopardy violation because evidence of putting a rope around the victim’s neck constituted the basis for both charges, namely battery with a deadly weapon and criminal confinement “being armed with a deadly weapon, to wit: a rope”
  • noting in a criminal case that the State is permitted to designate only one investigating officer as its party representative but an additional investigating officer may remain if the trial court finds he or she is an essential witness in the case
  • there, defendant did not make timely objection to jury instructions, and issue was waived for appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mattingly, Darden, Brook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

25 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.