Skip to main content

Cherry v. State

Citations

  • 414 N.E.2d 301
  • 275 Ind. 14

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that double jeopardy did not bar refiling of charge on which there had been no trial
  • suggesting that the State may prosecute a second trial for a crime that was “not complete at the time of the first trial”
  • prosecutorial vindictiveness existed where the State re-filed additional charges for the same criminal conduct following defendant’s successful motion to correct errors
  • The State must prove that the “increase in the number or severity of the charge s was n ot mo tivated by a vind ictive purpo se.”
  • prosecution may overcome the presumption by offering proof that additional evidence has been discovered, elements of the crime not complete at the first trial have now been completed, or an honest mistake or oversight was made at the time of the original decision to prosecute
  • prosecution may overcome the presumption by offering proof that additional evidence has been discovered, elem ents of the crime not com plete at the first trial have now been completed, or an honest mistake or oversight was made at the time of the original decision to prose cute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hunter, Debruler, Prentice, Pivarnik, Givan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.