Simpson v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Jorgensen v. State

    567 N.E.2d 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that defendant's escape from custody was admissible to show consciousness of guilt

    In Simpson v. State (1975), 165 Ind. App. 619, 333 N.E.2d 303, 304, this court stated:. . . [C]redibility, when in issue, must always be ascertained from circumstantial evidence, including the demeanor of the witness, the plausibility of the testimony, and the relative strengths of the evidence supporting and opposing testimony.

  2. In re C.G

    954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 2011)   Cited 286 times
    Finding a deficient performance by DCS did not violate due process

    Credibility of a witness must be ascertained from “circumstantial evidence, including the demeanor of the witness, the plausibility of the testimony, and the relative strengths of the evidence supporting and opposing the testimony.” Simpson v. State, 165 Ind.App. 619, 622, 333 N.E.2d 303, 304 (1975). “From consideration of this evidence, the trier of fact can form an opinion of the ‘probability’ that a particular witness is relating an accurate account of the incident.”

  3. Shaffer v. State

    449 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    Reversing a conviction where the deliberating jury heard lengthy audiotapes of trial testimony, as the state's procedural rules did not "authorize a virtually complete replay of the trial"

    Whatever they might have remembered of the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, matters vital to judging credibility were not preserved on the audio tape. When the jurors recommenced deliberations, they did so equipped with only the substantive testimony and lacking the facial gestures (demeanor), Simpson v. State, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 619, 622, 333 N.E.2d 303, 304, (per curiam), the manner in which the witnesses answered the questions, Dawson v. State, (1975) 163 Ind. App. 493, 496, 324 N.E.2d 839, 842 (trans. denied), the mannerisms, Cotner v. State, (1909) 173 Ind. 168, 170, 89 N.E. 847, 848, and the candor or lack thereof, Black v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 487, 490, 269 N.E.2d 870, 872, of the key witnesses.

  4. Schalkle v. State

    272 Ind. 134 (Ind. 1979)   Cited 28 times

    It is clear that since Ott testified as an alibi witness his credibility was an issue for the jury. Simpson v. State, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 619, 333 N.E.2d 303. The witness's overdose [2] on drugs created a question as to his ability to remember the events of the night in question.

  5. Pearson v. State

    No. 23A-CR-1491 (Ind. App. Mar. 27, 2024)

    Simpson v. State, 165 Ind.App. 619, 622, 333 N.E.2d 303, 304 (1975). Additionally, "[p]rosecutors are entitled to respond to allegations and inferences raised by the defense even if the prosecutor's response would otherwise be objectionable."

  6. Cox v. State

    780 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Declining to address Cox's incredible dubiosity claim because more than one witness testified as to events surrounding crime

    While this version of the incident is completely different than that relayed by Cox and his witnesses, it was for the jury to determine which version of the incident to believe. See Simpson v. State, 165 Ind. App. 619, 621, 333 N.E.2d 303, 304 (1975) (stating that it is common for the trial court as the trier of fact to base judgment upon selecting one of two conflicting stories in a criminal case). In such situations the decision to give credence to one story over the other must be a reasoned selection and not an arbitrary decision.

  7. Clark v. State

    173 Ind. App. 295 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    ". . . [C]redibility, when in issue, must always be ascertained from circumstantial evidence, including the demeanor of the witness, the plausibility of the testimony, and the relative strengths of the evidence supporting and opposing the testimony." Simpson v. State (1975), 165 Ind. App. 619, 333 N.E.2d 303, 304. Since the testimony of these witnesses are not incredible, this Court must accept the trial judge's assessment of their credibility; we will not re-weigh evidence upon appeal, rather, we look only to the evidence and inferences most favorable to the State. Traylor v. State (1975), 164 Ind. App. 50, 326 N.E.2d 614.