Skip to main content

Murphy v. State

Citations

  • 453 N.E.2d 219
  • 1983 Ind. LEXIS 943

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that a mistrial was declared upon the defendant's motion because of the prosecutor's use of improper identification procedures tainted the trial
  • noting that a mistrial was declared upon the defendant's motion because of the prosecutor's use of improper identification procedures tainted the trial
  • finding presumption of vindictiveness when state sought enhanced penalty at retrial after foregoing its right to seek the penalty in first trial which ended in a mistrial
  • “The rights to be examined in determining whether or not a theft has been committed are the rights of the person in possession of the property and the rights of the person who took such possession from him.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Debruler, Hunter, Pivarnik, Givan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

25 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.