Court Opinion

ID: 9745746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:30:35.622007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:45.182855
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
As in Spradlin v. State (1991), Ind., 569 N.E.2d 948 and Taylor v. State (1993), Ind., 616 N.E.2d 748, I must continue to dissent in this type of case. Also, I must continue to repeat that the instruction given in this case and quoted in the majority opinion hardly could be interpreted by any person reading it to mean other than the defendant must be found to have intended to kill the victim. The strained and unreasonable interpretation placed upon this type of instruction does nothing more than to cause our already crowded courts to take the time to retry a person who has already been convicted properly.
I would not require a retrial in this case.