State v. Berryman

801 N.E.2d 170, 2004 Ind. LEXIS 30, 2004 WL 49392
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 9, 2004
Docket10S01-0401-CR-15
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 801 N.E.2d 170 (State v. Berryman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Berryman, 801 N.E.2d 170, 2004 Ind. LEXIS 30, 2004 WL 49392 (Ind. 2004).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alan Lee Berryman v. State of Indiana
127 N.E.3d 1246 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2019)
Thomas L. Esmond v. State of Indiana
20 N.E.3d 213 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
801 N.E.2d 170, 2004 Ind. LEXIS 30, 2004 WL 49392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-berryman-ind-2004.