TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Berryman

STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. Alan Lee BERRYMAN, Appellee

State v. Berryman, 801 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. 2004)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 9, 2004
Docket
No. 10S01-0401-CR-15
Judges
Dickson, Friedlander
Citations
801 N.E.2d 1702004 Ind. LEXIS 302004 WL 49392

Opinion — Per Curiam

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER FROM THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS, NO. 10A01-0202-CR-76 PER CURIAM.

The State of Indiana appealed two reserved questions of law pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-38-4-2 following a jury's finding that Alan Lee Berryman was not responsible by reason of insanity on the charge of murder. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. State v. Berryman, 796 N.E.2d 741 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). The State filed a petition seeking transfer of jurisdiction over the appeal to this Court.

The State claimed the trial court erred in denying the prosecutor's motion to exclude the testimony of Berryman's expert witnesses. In finding no error, the Court of Appeals discussed the significance of the fact that the prosecutor did not seek an order compelling Berryman to cooperate with court-appointed mental health experts. Id. at 744-45 . The court stated, "Had there been such an order compelling Berryman's cooperation, and a hearing advising him that the testimony of his experts could be excluded if he failed to cooperate with the court-appointed experts, the result in this case may have been different." Id. at 745 .

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), we grant the State's petition seeking transfer of jurisdiction and modify the previously quoted statement to read as follows: "Had there been such an order compelling Berryman's cooperation, and a hearing advising him that the testimony of his experts could be excluded if he failed to cooperate with the court-appointed experts, the State would have prevailed on this issue." In all other respects, we summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

All Justices concur except DICKSON, J., who agrees with the dissent of FRIEDLANDER, J., reported at 796 N.E.2d at 746 , and dissents from this opinion on that basis.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2014: 12019: 120142026peak 2014 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Alan Lee Berryman v. State of Indiana127 N.E.3d 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
  2. Thomas L. Esmond v. State of Indiana20 N.E.3d 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)

Most recent

  1. Alan Lee Berryman v. State of Indiana127 N.E.3d 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
  2. Thomas L. Esmond v. State of Indiana20 N.E.3d 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Berryman, 796 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list