Seth Curtis 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, in part, that the armed robbery and auto theft convictions were separate and distinct crimes and were not subject to the single larceny rule
• holding that the single larceny rule did not apply where the defendant “first robbed Shweiki, in her capacity as an employee of CVS, of property belonging to the pharmacy, i.e., the Opana pills [and] then robbed Williams of her personal property, i.e., her car keys”
• evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for armed robbery; Curtis had discarded a plastic bottle before entering the store, and his DNA was later discovered on the bottle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).