Conviction for stalking four victims, based on conduct spanning January 2012 to February 2014, violated actual-evidence double jeopardy principles when defendant had been convicted a month earlier for invasion of privacy committed against three of the same victims for conduct spanning three days in January 2014. The State presented substantial evidence of the three-day course of conduct in the subsequent trial; and both cases alleged a violation of the same previously issued no-contact order.
R. Altice
Lothamer v. State, No. 92A05-1501-CR-26, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2015).
Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of manufacturing methamphetamine, even though he did not personally “cook” it, because he acted in concert with the “cook”; defendant was present and allowed his home to be used for that purpose without objection, supplied pseudoephedrine, and helped to conceal the process.