Legal Opinion

Marquise Lee v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 2015No. 49S02-1505-CR-275, 49S02-1505-CR-276PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUSH,' Chief Justice.

Defendants have a Due Process right to fair notice of the' charge or charges against them, and they are entitled to limit their defense to those matters. The “inherent” and “factual” inclusion tests we established in Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 566-67 (Ind.1995), are a necessary part of determining whether a defendant has fair notice of a lesser included offense — and in the context the question most commonly arises, no further analysis beyond Wright is necessary. But as the unusual facts of these cases illustrate, the ultimate question of fair notice can be broader…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Beck v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Schmuck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Ex Parte BainSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  5. Wright v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Christapher Batchelor v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Robert Scott Hilligoss v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Latoya Lee v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2015
  4. B.T.E. v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. Marquell M. Jackson v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2017

18 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