Warfel v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Coy v. State

    720 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. 1999)   Cited 20 times
    Holding a party’s "attempt to indoctrinate the jury during [juror examination] may require reversal if his or her questions amount to misconduct"

    Coy now argues that the jury should not have been encouraged to determine guilt or innocence by what it believed to be the appropriate penalty. (Appellant's Br. at 15 (citing Warfel v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. 1983)).) Certainly, prosecutors should refrain from discussing penalties with prospective jurors.

  2. Coppock v. State

    480 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 1985)   Cited 13 times

    The State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant's confession was freely self-determined and was not a result of promises, threats, or any other improper influence. Rogers v. Richmond (1961), 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760; Warfel v. State (1983), Ind., 454 N.E.2d 1218; Nacoff v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 97, 267 N.E.2d 165. On appeal, we look to all the circumstances to determine whether a confession was voluntary. Magley v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 618, 335 N.E.2d 811.