From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tolliver v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Mar 18, 2010
922 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that disclosure to the defendant is not required if the witness testifies favorably only with the hope or expectation of leniency

Summary of this case from Patterson v. State
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

No. 45A03-0906-CR-250.

March 18, 2010.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Lake County, Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr., J.

Charles E. Stewart, Jr., Appellate Public Defender, Crown Point, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Nicole Dongieux Wiggins, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

Summaries of

Tolliver v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Mar 18, 2010
922 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

holding that disclosure to the defendant is not required if the witness testifies favorably only with the hope or expectation of leniency

Summary of this case from Patterson v. State

noting that any error in admitting hearsay statements as statements against interest under Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b) was harmless where independent eyewitness testimony identified Tolliver as the shooter and other testimony linked Tolliver to the type of gun used to kill the victim

Summary of this case from Beasley v. State

noting that any error in admitting hearsay statements as statements against interest under Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b) was harmless where independent eyewitness testimony identified Tolliver as the shooter and other testimony linked Tolliver to the type of gun used to kill the victim

Summary of this case from Beasley v. State

noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )

Summary of this case from Beasley v. State

noting that “as a general matter, to qualify under this hearsay exception, the statement against interest must be incriminating on its face” (citing Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 878 )

Summary of this case from Beasley v. State

disapproving of “body language testimony” and holding that the trial court erred in finding police officer was a “skilled witness” who was “somehow uniquely qualified” to assess the defendant's truthfulness based on body language

Summary of this case from State v. Thompson
Case details for

Tolliver v. State

Case Details

Full title:Theotis TOLLIVER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Mar 18, 2010

Citations

922 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Sawyer v. State

Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the…

Davis v. State

We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which occurs…

34 Citing Cases