Legal Opinion

Richeson v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1998No. 45S05-9710-CR-558PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

Does the rule on intent announced in Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948 (Ind.1991), apply to crimes other than murder? We hold it does not.

Appellant Walter William Richeson was convicted of attempted battery, Ind.Code § 35-41-5-1; Ind.Code § 35^2-2-1 (a)(3), and criminal recklessness, Ind.Code § 35-42-2-2(b). He appeals only the attempted battery conviction, contending that the trial court wrongly instructed the jury on mens rea. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Richeson attended a party on November…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Loyd v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Spradlin v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Taylor v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Tunstall v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Henderson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1989

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Taylor v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Warren v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Hopkins v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Perez v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Joyner v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2000

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API