Skip to main content

Hopkins v. State

Citations

  • 759 N.E.2d 633
  • 2001 Ind. LEXIS 1103
  • 2001 WL 1641232

How courts have described this case

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

  • observing that where the confinement of a victim is greater than that which is inherently necessary to rob him, the confinement, while part of the robbery, is also a separate criminal transgression
  • “Defendant’s removal of [the victims] to the basement and the confinement after robbing them were separate criminal transgressions from the robberies themselves.”
  • where defendant’s confinement of victims extended beyond what was necessary to rob them, convictions for robbery and confinement were based on separate facts and did not constitute double jeopardy
  • “where the confinement of a victim is greater than that which is inherently necessary to rob them, the confinement, while part of the robbery, is also a separate criminal transgression”
  • “[W]here the confinement of a victim is greater than that which is inherently necessary to rob them, the confinement, while part of the robbery, is also a separate criminal transgression.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sullivan, Shepard, Dickson, Boehm, Rucker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.