Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Alain Kiiwon Powell, Jr. v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2026“If the statute, whether expressly or by judicial construction, indicates a unit of prosecution, then we follow the legislature’s guidance and our analysis is complete.” Id. 2024“If the statute, whether expressly or by judicial construction, indicates a unit of prosecution, then we follow the legislature’s guidance and our analysis is complete.” Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 264. | 6 | 6 |
Hurst v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Hurst[ v. State, 464 N.E.2d 19, 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)] (whether “multiple offenses of the same statute are committed during a single transaction” depends “on the definition of the particular crime involved”). 2020And, under our arson statute, a person who knowingly or intentionally damages property by fire or by explosive means “commits a separate offense for each person who suffers a bodily injury or serious bodily injury.” I.C. § 35-43-1-1. 7Whereas the “elements of an offense define what must be proved to convict a defendant of a crime,” a criminal statute’s “unit of prosecution defines how many offenses the defendant has committed.” United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105, 1117 (10th Cir. 2015) (Matheson, J., concurring). we follow the legislature’s guidance and our analysis is complete.8 See Hurst, | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2025There, to determine whether the facts show a single offense or distinguishable offenses, we ask “whether the defendant’s actions are ‘so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.’” Id. (quoting Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733, 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rentzgreen1 sentence2020And, under our arson statute, a person who knowingly or intentionally damages property by fire or by explosive means “commits a separate offense for each person who suffers a bodily injury or serious bodily injury.” I.C. § 35-43-1-1. 7Whereas the “elements of an offense define what must be proved to convict a defendant of a crime,” a criminal statute’s “unit of prosecution defines how many offenses the defendant has committed.” United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105, 1117 (10th Cir. 2015) (Matheson, J., concurring). we follow the legislature’s guidance and our analysis is complete.8 See Hurst, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.