Bunch v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Davis v. Washington · Richardson v. State · Anglemyer v. State · Anglemyer v. State · Spivey v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language expressing the actual evidence test explicitly requires evaluation of whether the evidentiary facts used to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense. The test is not merely whether the evidentiary facts used to establish one of the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish one of the essential elements of a second challenged offense. In other words, under the Richardson actual evidence test, the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish only one or even several, but not all, of the essential elements of a second offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[45] The Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause provides, “No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Ind. Const, art. I, § 14. We analyze alleged violations of this clause pursuant to our Supreme Court’s opinion in Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999). In Richardson , our Supreme Court held that “two or more offenses are the ‘same offense’ in violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution, if,'with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential 'elements of another challenged •offense.” 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind.1999) (emphasis in original).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Application of this test requires the court to ‘identify the essential elements of each of the challenged crimes and to evaluate the evidence from the jury’s perspective[.]’ ” Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231, 1234 (Ind.2008) (quoting Spivey v, State, 761 N.E.2d 831, 832 (Ind.2002)). Therefore, we consider the essential elements of the offenses, the charging information, the jury instructions, the evidence, and the arguments of counsel. Id. The term “reasonable possibility” “turns on a practical assessment of whether the jury may have latched on to exactly the same facts for both convictions.” Id. at 1236.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.