Washington v. State

Decided November 30, 1982

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1982-11-30

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Just as in Morgan [v. State, Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1087 at 1091 ], I think it cannot be said that the State was not given “one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble” of Defendant’s habitual criminal status, and upon authority of Burks v. United States, (1978) 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 , I would remand the case to vacate the verdict upon the habitual offender count and to resentence the defendant.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Washington v. Duckworth

Relies on Burks v. United States · Morgan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-11-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Lockhart v. State (1996), Commitment of J.B. v. Midtown Mental Health Center (1991)

37 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PRENTICE, Justice,

¶1concurring in part, dissenting in part.

¶2I concur in the majority decision except insofar as it remands the habitual offender count for retrial. In this regard, I dissent for the same reasons set forth in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Morgan v. State, (1982) Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1087 at 1091. Just as in Morgan, I think it cannot be said that the State was not given “one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble” of Defendant’s habitual criminal status, and upon authority of Burks v. United States, (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, I would remand the case to vacate the verdict upon the habitual offender count and to re-sentence the defendant.