Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Indiana v. James Coleman
Date: 02-20-2025
Case Number: 49D07-2212-F3-32689
Judge: Marshelle Dawkson Broadwell
Court: Superior Court, Marion County, Indiana
Plaintiff's Attorney: Marion County, Indiana County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Indeianapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Click Here For The Best Indeianapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Indianapolis, Indiana criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with Level 3 felony rape, Level 4 felony
burglary, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Level 6 felony criminal confinement.
Coleman was accused to attacking M.K. in her home and robbing her.
* * *
Legal issue Did the trial court commit fundamental error by not defining "breaking" in the jury instructions, and was there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTION. The case involves whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to define the term "breaking" in jury instructions related to a burglary charge, despite the defendant not requesting such a definition during trial.
CRIMINAL LAW. BURGLARY. The court reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for Level 4 felony burglary, specifically addressing whether the evidence demonstrated that the defendant used force, however slight, to gain unauthorized entry into the victim's dwelling.
Key Phrases Level 4 felony burglary conviction. Jury instruction fundamental error. Sufficient evidence to support conviction. Breaking and entering definition. Mistaken identity defense.
burglary, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Level 6 felony criminal confinement.
Coleman was accused to attacking M.K. in her home and robbing her.
* * *
Legal issue Did the trial court commit fundamental error by not defining "breaking" in the jury instructions, and was there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTION. The case involves whether the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to define the term "breaking" in jury instructions related to a burglary charge, despite the defendant not requesting such a definition during trial.
CRIMINAL LAW. BURGLARY. The court reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for Level 4 felony burglary, specifically addressing whether the evidence demonstrated that the defendant used force, however slight, to gain unauthorized entry into the victim's dwelling.
Key Phrases Level 4 felony burglary conviction. Jury instruction fundamental error. Sufficient evidence to support conviction. Breaking and entering definition. Mistaken identity defense.
Outcome:
Defendant was found guilty by a jury.
Affirmed on appeal.
Affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Indiana v. James Coleman?
The outcome was: Defendant was found guilty by a jury. Affirmed on appeal.
Which court heard State of Indiana v. James Coleman?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Marion County, Indiana, IN. The presiding judge was Marshelle Dawkson Broadwell.
Who were the attorneys in State of Indiana v. James Coleman?
Plaintiff's attorney: Marion County, Indiana County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Indeianapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Indiana v. James Coleman decided?
This case was decided on February 20, 2025.