Shipley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Despite the recent United States Supreme Court’s decision in [Dixon], this [cjourt is bound by our own supreme court's interpretation of the [djouble [¡jeopardy [cjlause contained in the Indiana Constitution.”). In Shipley , the Indiana Court of Appeals observed that its "supreme court requires that in addition to a Block-burger ... analysis, [it] must also look to the manner in which the offenses [were] charged and not merely the statutory definitions of the offenses.” Id. “Moreover,” said the court, "when the same act constitutes two separate crimes, the very essence of double jeopardy principles prevents two separate convictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Feliciano

2. “The chain-of-custody doctrine requires an adequate foundation to be laid showing the continuous whereabouts of physical evidence before it may be admitted into evidence. When dealing with fungible items, ... the State has an enhanced burden of demonstrating a sufficient chain-of-custody. The State, however, need only provide evidence that strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence at all times. The State need not provide evidence that excludes all possibilities of tampering but instead must provide reasonable assurances that the evidence passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. State

3. “At trial, the evidence showed that the acts which caused the victim’s death were the combination of malnutrition, dehydration, and blunt force trauma over a period of time; these acts cannot be used as the factual basis for both. the neglect of a dependent charge and the murder charge, to do so would be to punish [the defendant] twice for the same acts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Feliciano