Hunt v. State

37 Citing cases

  1. Pasha v. State

    524 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. 1988)   Cited 19 times
    Providing that "[b]ald assertions of error unsupported by either cogent argument or citation to authority result in waiver of any error on review."

    Such decision will be reversed only for abuse of discretion which is demonstrated when the defendant shows prejudice by failure to grant the continuance. Martin v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 1001, 1005; Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307, 313. Granting a continuance in order to allow more time for preparation is generally not favored without a showing of good cause and continuance motions made on the first morning of trial are not favored. Bedgood v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 869, 871; Bryan v. State (1982) Ind., 438 N.E.2d 709, 714. The State certified Pasha had been served with notice of the habitual offender count when it was filed on July 13, 1984, and also tendered a copy of the document to Pasha on July 23, 1984. Pasha does not claim he did not receive notice of the habitual offender finding and its allegations on those dates.

  2. Hatchett v. State

    503 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1987)   Cited 22 times
    In Hatchett v. State, 503 N.E.2d 398, 403 (Ind.1987), the defendant offered proof concerning the prior convictions of one witness and proof of the criminal acts of another witness.

    To show an abuse of discretion, appellant must demonstrate that in light of what occurred at trial, the denial of a separate trial subjected him to actual prejudice. Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307. Hatchett raises several specific allegations of prejudice resulting from the joint trial.

  3. Smith v. State

    490 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 1986)   Cited 12 times

    Therefore, appellant concludes, his confessions were also tainted and should have been excluded. As appellee points out, any challenge to the identification procedure has been waived by the failure to make an objection at trial or to raise the issue in the Motion to Correct Errors. Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307; Johnson v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1307, Watkins v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 949. Moreover, it appears that such an objection would have been unavailing. In assessing whether a photographic array should be admitted, the question is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the array was impermissibly suggestive and conducive to a mistaken identification.

  4. Dudley v. State

    480 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. 1985)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that the trial court's instruction to jurors that it had already determined venue as a matter of law did not invade the province of the jury

    In order to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the record must reveal that the defendant was prejudiced by the failure to grant the continuance. Hunt v. State, (1983) Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307. In the case at bar, Phillips argues that due to the denial of continuances his trial counsel was not fully prepared for trial.

  5. Killian v. State

    467 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 7 times

    Indeed, he cites several controlling cases which decide this issue in the State's favor, but asks us to reevaluate the previous holdings. Hunt v. State, (1983) Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307; Morris v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 473, 364 N.E.2d 132, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 972, 98 S.Ct. 526, 54 L.Ed.2d 462; Tewell v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 88, 339 N.E.2d 792; Swininger v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 136, 352 N.E.2d 473; Martin v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 232, 314 N.E.2d 60; cert.denied, (1975) 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 833, 42 L.Ed.2d 841. We decline Killian's invitation and find no error.

  6. Mason v. State

    689 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. 1997)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that police officer's testimony about informant's tips to police were hearsay because it prevented defendant from cross-examining informant

    Second, the facts asserted in the hearsay were not already in evidence. Cf. Hunt v. State, 455 N.E.2d 307, 316 (Ind. 1983) (hearsay harmless where the facts asserted in the hearsay had already been established). Third, while we have previously determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for dealing heroin, Mason, 532 N.E.2d 1169, the evidence of Ma son's guilt on this charge was not overwhelming.

  7. Brown v. State

    650 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 1995)   Cited 21 times
    In Brown v. State, 650 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 1995), the defendant was charged with seven separate counts, three stemming from acts committed on July 1 and the remaining for acts committed on July 2.

    We will only reverse the judgment and order new, separate trials if the defendant can "show that in light of what actually occurred at trial, the denial of a separate trial subjected him to such prejudice that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant his motion for severance." Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307, 312. In the present case, the defendant broke into Jerry Johnson's home; and, when Mr. Johnson discovered the crime in progress, the defendant fired on him in furtherance of his escape.

  8. Taylor v. State

    587 N.E.2d 1293 (Ind. 1992)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that “if evidence only inconclusively connects the defendant with the crime, this goes to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the evidence”

    Appellant's failure to cite any authority is a waiver of this issue. Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307. However, assuming that appellant has not waived the issue, appellant was not harmed by the introduction in evidence of the above mentioned testimony.

  9. Whittle v. State

    542 N.E.2d 981 (Ind. 1989)   Cited 49 times
    In Whittle v. State, 542 N.E.2d 981, 985 (Ind. 1989) overruled on other grounds, Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. 1998), the Supreme Court of Indiana concluded that a defendant, advised of his right to individual counsel and questioned about possible conflicts, waives any subsequent appeal based on the potential conflict of interest unless he objects at trial.

    The prosecutor is required to disclose evidence which is so obviously exculpatory that a failure to do so would deny a defendant a fair trial. Dukes v. State (1986), Ind., 501 N.E.2d 420, 423; Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307, 314. There is no such showing here.

  10. Mftari v. State

    537 N.E.2d 469 (Ind. 1989)   Cited 29 times

    This Court will not consider a defendant's contentions that are unsupported by authority. Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307. The defendant does not provide any supporting authority on this sub-issue.