Cornelius Hines v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the continuing crime doctrine did not apply where the defendant was convicted of confinement and battery and was “not convicted of multiple charges of criminal confinement, nor multiple charges of battery”
• holding the continuous crime doctrine did not apply to the facts of the case and noting the defendant was not convicted of multiple charges of charges of battery
• concluding it was a reasonable possibility that the same evidence used by the jury to establish the essential elements of battery was also included among the evidence used to establish the essential elements of criminal confinement
• considering sexual battery a “violent crime[],” although not classified as such by our legislature
• noting as relevant to nature of the offense that battery was committed in prison
• finding “a reasonable possibility that the same evidence used by the jury to establish the essential elements of battery was also included among the evidence used by the jury to establish the essential elements of criminal confinement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).