holding that the State’s failure to give the defendant impeachment evidence did not undermine the confidence in the trial’s outcome where trial counsel employed other methods to impeach a State witness and the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming
How later courts described this case
- holding that the State’s failure to give the defendant impeachment evidence did not undermine the confidence in the trial’s outcome where trial counsel employed other methods to impeach a State witness and the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming
- holding that "[the affidavit as a whole was sufficient in form and substance to serve as a basis for the issuance of a search warrant for appellant's truck, and the fruits of that search were properly admitted"
- federal Double Jeopardy Clause jurisprudence does not require looking to the manner in which offenses are charged; defendant presented no argument that Indiana Constitution provides double jeopardy protections different from those under federal constitution
- a state is free to impose greater restrictions as a matter of its own law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring.
I am not as sure as my colleagues of the impact on our interpretation of federal double jeopardy jurisprudence caused by the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed,2d 556 (1993) (particularly on our interpretation of it in a case like Buie v. State, 633 N.E.2d 250 (Ind.1994), which involved a multiple prosecution, not multiple punishment, issue). I fully concur in the opinion, however, because, whatever the nuances of federal constitutional law in this area after Dixon , today’s opinion makes no change in Indiana *482 constitutional or statutory law in this regard and so the precedential value of oUr earlier cases is not affected. Certainly I agree that the two double jeopardy claims rejected here on federal double jeopardy grounds would be decided the same way under Indiana law: (1) sentencing Games for both Murder and Robbery, see, e.g., Flowers v. State, 481 N.E.2d 100, 106 (Ind.1985) (sustaining convictions for knowing and intentional murder and robbery); (2) sentencing Games for both Murder and Class A felony Robbery, see, e.g., Woods v. State, 677 N.E.2d 499, 501-502 (Ind.1997) (sustaining convictions for murder and Class A robbery because the force necessary to elevate robbery conviction to Class A felony was different from the force necessary to' kill the victim).