Indiana Supreme Court· 9/3/2008

Lee v. State

Citations

892 N.E.2d 1231
2008 Ind. LEXIS 772
2008 WL 4060984

How courts have described this case

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

ruling that jury likely used the barging into the home to establish the burglary and the evidence of the defendant’s threats and demands to convict of attempted armed robbery
explaining that the existence of a “‘reasonable possibility’ turns on a practical assessment of whether the jury may have latched on to exactly the same facts for both convictions”
discussing Redman and observing that the Court had not found a double jeopardy violation when the fact supporting a first charge could theoretically have served as the overt act of a conspiracy charge, but the jury was instructed on additional facts supporting an overt act
defendant's act of demanding money after he broke and entered victim's home proved that defendant intended to commit a felony in the home
“Factual findings of the post-conviction court are subject to review under a clearly erroneous standard except when they are based entirely on a paper record.”
“[i]n determining the facts used by the fact-finder to establish the elements of each offense, it is appropriate to consider the charging information, jury instructions, and arguments of counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boehm, Dickson, Rucker, Shepard, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

14 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.