Legal Opinion · Dissent

Perry v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 5, 2007No. 49A05-0609-CR-508Published

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

  1. Averhart v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Weis v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Bunting v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API