law double jeopardy principle in Indiana

2020See Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 724 (stating that to establish prejudice, the petitioner must show that the omitted issues were clearly more likely to result in reversal).

2018Id.; Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [8] Johnson asserts, and the State concedes, that his convictions, for battery as a Class A misdemeanor and for criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor, violate Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy because a single act – punching Martin in the face – was used to support the two convictions.

2013Cf. Vandergriff, 812 N.E.2d at 1090 (finding no violation of this common law double jeopardy principle because the State relied upon a grabbing incident as the basis for the neglect conviction and a tossing incident as the basis for the battery conviction).

2013Cf. Vandergriff, 812 N.E.2d at 1090 (finding no violation of this common law double jeopardy principle because the State relied upon a grabbing incident as the basis for the neglect conviction and a tossing incident as the basis for the battery conviction).

2013“The continuing crime doctrine essentially provides that actions that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Baugh v. State, 926 N.E.2d 497, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), aff’d in relevant part, 933 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2013We have explained the continuing crime doctrine as follows: “The continuing crime doctrine essentially provides that actions that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. “[T]he continuing crime doctrine reflects a category of Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy.” Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2013We have explained the continuing crime doctrine as follows: “The continuing crime doctrine essentially provides that actions that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. “[T]he continuing crime doctrine reflects a category of Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy.” Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2013“The continuing crime doctrine essentially provides that actions that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Baugh v. State, 926 N.E.2d 497, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), aff’d in relevant part, 933 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).