formulation test in Indiana

1994We first apply the classic formulation of the test for double jeopardy known as the “same-elements” test: “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 186 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 ; see Jackson v. State (1993), Ind., 625 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 .

1994We first apply the classic formulation of the test for double jeopardy known as the “same-elements” test: “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 186 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 ; see Jackson v. State (1993), Ind., 625 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 .

2007The classic formulation of the doctrine of equitable subrogation in the case of a purchaser of a note and mortgage for value is that the “purchaser’s right of sub-rogation to the mortgage he or she discharged includes its priority over junior liens of which he or she did not have actual knowledge, [and] where he or she was not culpably negligent in failing to learn of the junior lien.” Bank of New York v. Nally, 820 N.E.2d 644 (Ind.2005).

1981It is true, as the State alleges, that such a showing of harm is required where there has been a substantial compliance with the appropriate procedures and the errors alleged appear to have been of only a technical or minor nature, such as in the cases cited by the State and in Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450 , 288 N.E.2d 155 (commissioners appointed in December rather than November as required by statute) and in Leonard v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 361 , 232 N.E.2d 882 (failure to draw names of prospective jurors for both grand and petit juries at the same time).

1981It is true, as the State alleges, that such a showing of harm is required where there has been a substantial compliance with the appropriate procedures and the errors alleged appear to have been of only a technical or minor nature, such as in the cases cited by the State and in Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450 , 288 N.E.2d 155 (commissioners appointed in December rather than November as required by statute) and in Leonard v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 361 , 232 N.E.2d 882 (failure to draw names of prospective jurors for both grand and petit juries at the same time).

1981It is true, as the State alleges, that such a showing of harm is required where there has been a substantial compliance with the appropriate procedures and the errors alleged appear to have been of only a technical or minor nature, such as in the cases cited by the State and in Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450 , 288 N.E.2d 155 (commissioners appointed in December rather than November as required by statute) and in Leonard v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 361 , 232 N.E.2d 882 (failure to draw names of prospective jurors for both grand and petit juries at the same time).

1981It is true, as the State alleges, that such a showing of harm is required where there has been a substantial compliance with the appropriate procedures and the errors alleged appear to have been of only a technical or minor nature, such as in the cases cited by the State and in Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450 , 288 N.E.2d 155 (commissioners appointed in December rather than November as required by statute) and in Leonard v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 361 , 232 N.E.2d 882 (failure to draw names of prospective jurors for both grand and petit juries at the same time).

1969(Emphasis added.)” 4 L.

1969(Emphasis added.)" 4 L.Ed.2d at 922 .