Liddle v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Duckworth

    687 F.2d 1063 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 14 times
    In Moore v. Duckworth, 687 F.2d 1063 (7th Cir. 1983), we upheld the facial validity of the Indiana Rape Shield Statute. Still, although the principle of rape shield statutes has been held constitutional, both by this court and the Supreme Court in Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991), the constitutionality of the law as applied remains subject to examination on a case by case basis.

    After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the jurors were polled regarding Moore's guilt but Moore did not request that they be polled or otherwise questioned regarding their knowledge that Falise was pregnant. Under Indiana procedures, polling the jury is an acceptable and indeed sometimes required means of testing for prejudice. Follrad v. State, 428 N.E.2d 1201, 1202 (Ind. 1981); Liddle v. State, 260 Ind. 548, 550, 297 N.E.2d 801, 802 (1973). Moore appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, arguing that this particular application of the Rape Shield Law denied him a fair trial.

  2. Jarvis v. State

    441 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1982)   Cited 15 times

    The ruling upon the motion to sequester, therefore, is moot. With regard to the motion to interrogate the jury, the authority cited by Defendant, Liddle v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 548, 297 N.E.2d 801, does not support his position. That case requires such action by the court only if there has been presented some basis for a reasonable belief that one or more of the jurors has been exposed to potentially harmful publicity. The case does not suggest that the court is required to initiate an inquiry as a "fishing expedition."

  3. Carlyle v. State

    428 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 1981)   Cited 15 times

    Appellant did not allege or show that there was any evidence of possibly prejudicial media accounts during the weekend nor did he make any motion for withdrawal of submission of the cause from the jury on the refusal of the court to poll the jury. Appellant's citation of Liddle v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 548, 297 N.E.2d 801 does not support his proposition that "denial of a defense motion to poll the jury as to the extent of their knowledge of trial publicity has been held to be reversible error." This Court held in Liddle, supra, that it was error not to have polled the jury in relation to one newspaper article when that article contained information about the defendant considered inadmissible and a juror was seen to have a copy of the newspaper containing the article.

  4. Bruce v. State

    268 Ind. 180 (Ind. 1978)   Cited 163 times
    Holding search of vehicle revealing a shotgun used in murder prosecution was permissible where officer was responding to a report of an accident with injury

    Lindsey v. State, Ibid.Lindsey does not explicitly define the qualities rendering publicity prejudicial, but an examination of that case and Liddle v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 548, 297 N.E.2d 801, reveal two categories of publicity with which we are concerned. See also Sacks v. State, (1977) Ind. App., 360 N.E.2d 21, 27-28.

  5. Ridenour v. State

    639 N.E.2d 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that there is no need to employ the procedure set forth in Lindsey unless there is a basis for believing that the jury may have been subject to "improper out-of-court stimuli"

    Jarvis v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 1, 7. The court is not required to initiate an inquiry as a "fishing expedition." Id. See also Liddle v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 548, 297 N.E.2d 801, 802. Because the trial court did not examine the remaining jurors as to conversations they may have had with Juror Brown, we are concerned with the threshold determination of whether a substantial likelihood of prejudice exists, such as requires the trial court to make further inquiry into the matter. Bruce, supra 375 N.E.2d at 1067.

  6. Little v. State

    413 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that previous false accusations "must be demonstrably false" before such evidence is admitted

    Defendant did not want to pursue that course and made no later request that the jury be questioned. Having failed to avail himself of this corrective action, Little may not now base error on his speculations. See Liddle v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 548, 297 N.E.2d 801. Defendant maintains that other witnesses were aware of the arrests and may have slanted their testimony against him because they feared similar reprisals by the State.

  7. Weatherford v. State

    164 Ind. App. 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 5 times
    In Weatherford v. State, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 340, 328 N.E.2d 756, 759-60, the Court of Appeals adopted the Lindsey procedure in circumstances involving anonymous phone calls directed to jurors.

    The statement, "I had a call last night", which might have been overheard by some jurors, is not so revealing as to give rise to substantial risk of prejudice. Liddle v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 548, 297 N.E.2d 801 also illustrates the nature of the court's duty to investigate. A prejudicial newspaper article had been printed, but there was no evidence of exposure to any member of the jury.