Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859

Lee was convicted of criminal confinement (Class B) and intimidation (Class C) after a jury trial arising from an encounter with K.F. at a strip club and subsequent hotel-room events.
K.F. met Lee on her first day working at Patty's Show Club; Lee paid for a private dance and exchanged phone numbers.
Lee drove K.F. to a bar, a hotel room, and then to an apartment to buy marijuana, where tensions and alcohol were involved.
In the hotel room Lee repeatedly pressured for sex and threatened K.F. with a gun, resulting in fear and attempts to leave; K.F. ultimately fled to a Denny’s and reported the incident.
At trial, Lee tendered a final instruction on presumption of innocence; the court refused, and the jury convicted on Counts I and II but acquitted on Counts III–V.
On appeal, Lee argues the court abused its discretion by not giving the requested presumption-of-innocence instruction; the State contends other instructions adequately conveyed the concept.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Presumption of innocence instruction error	Lee argues Robey required the instruction	State says existing instructions cover the concept	Abused discretion; remanded for new trial

Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 1983) (presumption instruction required if requested to fit evidence to innocence)
Farley v. State, 127 Ind. 419, 26 N.E. 898 (Ind. 1891) (presumption of innocence instruction should be thorough and separate from reasonable doubt)
Simmons v. State, 385 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. App. 1979) (importance of defining presumption of innocence beyond general statement)
Simpson v. State, 915 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (Robey's dictate not satisfied by generic instructions)