Convictions for murder and robbery, which relate to a single victim, do not offend double jeopardy.
Criminal
Knight v. State, 20A-CR-268, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 15, 2020).
The imposition of community service, as a term of probation, is beyond the trial court’s discretion where the condition is not specified in the plea agreement and where the plea agreement contains language that limits the trial court’s discretion to impose such a condition.
D.P. v. State, State v. N.B., No. 20S-JV-443, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Sep. 8, 2020).
A juvenile court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to waive an alleged delinquent offender into adult criminal court if the individual is no longer a “child.”
State v. Stone, No. 20A-CR-421, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2020).
An informant’s declaration against penal interest can furnish sufficient basis for establishing the informant’s credibility.
Wadle v. State, No. 19S-CR-340, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 18, 2020).
In overruling Richardson, the Indiana Supreme Court set forth the following test: When multiple convictions for a single act or transaction implicate two or more statutes, a court first looks to the statutes themselves. If either statute clearly permits multiple punishment, whether expressly or by unmistakable implication, the court’s inquiry comes to an end and there is no violation of substantive double jeopardy. But if the statutory language is not clear, then a court must apply the included offense statutes to determine whether the charged offenses are the same. See I.C. § 35-31.5-2-168. If neither offense is included in the other (either inherently or as charged), there is no violation of double jeopardy. But if one offense is included in the other (either inherently or as charged), then the court must examine the facts underlying those offenses, as presented in the charging instrument and as adduced at trial. If, based on these facts, the defendant’s actions were “so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction,” then the prosecutor may charge the offenses as alternative sanctions only. If the defendant’s actions prove otherwise, a court may convict on each charged offense.