Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ray v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 15, 1984No. 4-1083A353Published

1DissentYoung, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority's opinion essentially grants the state a new trial on its affirmative defense of laches. Under our rules, however, we will grant a new trial only when the trial court has erred and a new trial is the only fair and practicable way to correct the error. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 15(N); see Clouse v. Fielder, (1982) Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 148 ({new trial appropriate only upon issues affected by trial court error). Here, the state alleges no error affecting its affirmative defense of laches; thus, the state is not entitled to present additional…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Frankie Joe Todd v. A. L. Lockhart, Superintendent, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of CorrectionCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1974
  3. Turman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1979
  4. F. W. Means & Co. v. CarstensIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Clouse v. FielderIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982

7 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