Perry v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentCrone, Judge
“It has been held repeatedly that a defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, *645but is entitled to a fair trial, free of errors so egregious that they, in all probability, caused the conviction.” Averhart v. State, 614 N.E.2d 924, 929 (Ind.1993). I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s typographical error in its response to Jury Note # 4 is so egregious that it warrants the reversal of Perry’s convictions. Therefore, I dissent.
I would hold that Perry procedurally defaulted this issue by failing to object to the typographical error. Perry’s counsel read,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Averhart v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Weis v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Bunting v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006