Skip to main content

Mayo v. State

Citations

  • 681 N.E.2d 689
  • 1997 Ind. LEXIS 77
  • 1997 WL 332523

How courts have described this case

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

  • affirming confinement conviction because the evidence “supports the fact that a confinement took place separate from the rape”
  • enhancement is neither “a new jeopardy” nor an “additional penalty” for an earlier offense, but rather “a stiffened penalty for the latest crime”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dickson, Sullivan, Selby, Boehm, Shepard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 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.