Jackson v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. Stevenson

    677 N.E.2d 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that defendant's actions constituted contempt and evidence supported finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress

    The determination of whether a party is in contempt of court is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied. We will only reverse the trial court's determination if the court has abused its discretion.

  2. Packer v. State

    777 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    In Packer, the Court of Appeals suggested that counsel faced with preparing an appeal in which they had identified no issue of merit should file an " Anders brief" using the procedure explained below.

    The first issue addressed by the parties is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found Packer in contempt. A trial court has discretion to determine whether a party is in contempt of court.Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 607 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied. We will reverse the trial court's finding only if the trial court abused its discretion.

  3. Fisher v. Fisher

    30 N.E.3d 785 (Ind. App. 2015)

    [8] The determination of whether a party is in contempt of court is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied.

  4. S.H. v. State (In re S.H.)

    969 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. App. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    It cites a number of decisions, but all of them involve situations where, unlike in the case before us, charges had already been brought. See Lucas v. State, 499 N.E.2d 1090, 1095 (Ind.1986) (trial court granted use immunity for pre-trial deposition); In re Gardner, 713 N.E.2d 346, 347 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (State attempted to depose Gardner about charges against a fellow inmate, and Gardner refused to testify at the deposition even though he was given use immunity); Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (Jackson was granted use immunity but refused to testify during deposition during codefendant's trial), trans. denied; and Chanley v. State, 550 N.E.2d 764, 767 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (State's first petition for use immunity at deposition of Chanley as a witness on behalf of a charged defendant was not premature when Chanley would likely assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when faced with similar questions asked by the prosecutor at trial). The State relies on Indiana Bell to support the premise that because “the investigatory powers of the prosecutor now parallel those of the grand jury” and a prosecutor “has the same ability to accumulate evidence as the grand jury,” 274 Ind. at 135, 409 N.E.2d at 1091, the prosecutor must necessarily have the same authority to offer use immunity as is available in grand jury proceedings.

  5. Jones v. State

    847 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 52 times
    Finding that sentences imposed for criminal contempt are "to vindicate the authority of the trial court and not to punish for the commission of a criminal act" and therefore do not fall within the purviews of Indiana Code section 35-50-6-4

    The determination of whether a party is in contempt of court is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Williams v. State ex rel. Harris, 690 N.E.2d 315, 316 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997); see also Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied. We will reverse the trial court's determination only if the court has abused its discretion.

  6. Williams v. State ex Rel. Harris

    690 N.E.2d 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 19 times
    In Williams v. State ex rel. Harris, 690 N.E.2d 315 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), this court held that a layperson litigant could not be found in direct contempt for failing to appear for a scheduled court hearing.

    The determination of whether a party is in contempt of court is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied.

  7. Hanson v. Spolnik

    685 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding substantial change in circumstances where the mother made repeated allegations that the father was sexually abusing the child, all of which were unsubstantiated, and the parents could not communicate with each other

    The determination of whether a party is in contempt of court is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jackson v. State, 644 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. We will only reverse the trial court's determination for an abuse of discretion.

  8. Matter of Steelman

    648 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 7 times
    Rejecting the argument that use and derivative use immunity was not coextensive with the privilege on the ground that “a person granted immunity is subject to direct examination and cross-examination without the protection of counsel” because that argument “is premature and disregards the protections afforded a witness who testifies under a grant of immunity”

    State v. Peters (1994), Ind. App., 637 N.E.2d 145. In Jackson v. State (1994), Ind. App., 644 N.E.2d 607, this court declared an immunized witness's fears that the State might use his testimony to obtain witnesses against him to be without merit and speculative. Steelman's arguments are likewise speculative and premature.