§

Manns v. State

459 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)
Manns v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Broadus v. State

    487 N.E.2d 1298 (Ind. 1986)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that a typographical error on the jury verdict form was harmless error because the trial court polled the jurors after the mistake was discovered to make sure that they understood the verdict that they had entered

    The court polled each juror before discharging them and received a unanimous response that they intended to find Defendant guilty of robbery, not burglary. Appellants argue it was improper for the court to poll the jury when they returned an incorrect verdict because each juror was subjected to the coercive effect of the courtroom. Appellants rely upon Manns v. State (1984), Ind. App., 459 N.E.2d 435 to support their position. However, Manns is distinguishable from the present case.

  2. Ried v. State

    610 N.E.2d 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 19 times

    The propriety of the prosecutor's conduct pursuant to Ind.Professional Conduct Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4 notwithstanding, double jeopardy does not attach on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Whitehead, supra; Manns v. State (1984), Ind. App., 459 N.E.2d 435, 437; and I.C. 35-41-4-3(b), infra, imply that Indiana has adopted the standard for double jeopardy on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Oregon. The Oregon Court narrowed the standard in which double jeopardy may attach from a broad, generalized test of "bad faith conduct or harassment" on the part of the prosecutor to governmental conduct "intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial."

  3. Maynard v. State

    508 N.E.2d 1346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Distinguishing Hewell on the grounds that the evidence seized “which was not listed in warrant ... was not readily apparent to be contraband....”

    When a trial court receives a defective verdict form from a jury, the trial court should send the jury back for more deliberations to correct the defect. Manns v. State (1984), Ind. App., 459 N.E.2d 435, 436. Specifically, it is the duty of the trial judge to see that the verdict is in proper form and covers all the issues before discharging the jury.

  4. State v. Mercer

    500 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    In State v. Mercer, 500 N.E.2d 1278, 1282-83 (Ind.Ct.App. 1986), this court reached a conclusion opposite that in Davenport and Klinger and held that where the defendant was convicted of criminal recklessness but the jury could not reach an agreement on the greater offense of aggravated battery, double jeopardy precluded his retrial on the battery charge.

    We first consider the State's contention that Mercer waived his right to assert double jeopardy by failing to object to the verdict. In support of this contention, the State cites Manns v. State (1984), Ind. App., 459 N.E.2d 435. In Manns, the jury returned a defective guilty verdict.