Skip to main content

Smith v. State

Citations

  • 881 N.E.2d 1040
  • 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 442
  • 2008 WL 615391

How courts have described this case

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

  • “We raise the issue sua sponte because a double jeopardy violation, if shown, implicates fundamental rights.”
  • “It is improper for the State to rely on evidence of the same injury to sustain a conviction for both class A felony robbery and class B felony aggravated battery.”
  • “It is improper for the State to rely on evidence of the same injury to sustain a conviction for both class A felony robbery and class B felony aggravated battery.”
  • convictions of robbery and confinement did not violate Indiana Code section 35-38-1-6; State provided evidence of force used to commit confinement that was separate from force used to commit robbery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baker, Darden, Bradford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 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.