Thorpe v. State, 52A05-9605-CR-190
Decision Date | 17 October 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 52A05-9605-CR-190,52A05-9605-CR-190 |
Citation | 686 N.E.2d 1296 |
Parties | Gary D. THORPE, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
In a memorandum decision issued July 16, 1997, we held that principles of double jeopardy barred Thorpe's convictions for both attempted murder and burglary as a Class A felony because the charging informations based the crimes upon the same factual allegations, i.e., the infliction of the same injuries on the victim. As a result, we reversed Thorpe's burglary conviction and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions that judgment of conviction be entered for burglary as a Class B felony.
The State seeks rehearing, claiming that the supreme court's decisions in Games v. State, 684 N.E.2d 466 (Ind.1997) and Grinstead v. State, 684 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.1997), decided six days after our opinion, preclude a reduction in Thorpe's burglary conviction on double jeopardy grounds. Thorpe responds that the reduction in his burglary conviction should stand because he advanced a state constitutional claim, the validity of which remains after the Games and Grinstead opinions because those decisions were limited to federal constitutional principles.
In a footnote, the supreme court in Games commented on the defendant's state constitutional claim:
684 N.E.2d at 473 n. 7 (additional citations omitted).
The supreme court based its decision to ignore the state constitutional issue upon the defendant's failure to argue that the Indiana Constitution required a separate analysis of the double jeopardy claim. There was no reason, however, for a defendant to advance a separate analysis under the state constitution's double jeopardy clause because prior to the Games decision, double jeopardy claims brought under the state constitution were analyzed conjointly with double jeopardy claims brought under the federal constitution. See Neal v. State, 659 N.E.2d 122, 124-25 (Ind.1995); Buie v. State, 633 N.E.2d 250, 260-61 (Ind.1994). See also Chiesi v. State, 644 N.E.2d 104, 106-07 (Ind.1994) ( ).
Defendants now have a reason to argue that double jeopardy claims under the state constitution should be analyzed differently than their federal counterpart because of the change in the analysis of federal double jeopardy claims brought about by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), as interpreted and made binding by our supreme court in Games. Despite such a change in federal constitutional jurisprudence, the majority opinion in Games "makes no change in Indiana constitutional or statutory law in this regard and so the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richardson v. State, 67A01-9705-CR-143
...determine whether the same act constitutes the factual basis for both offenses. Id. 685 N.E.2d at 1101-02. Again, in Thorpe v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) trans. reversed (issue not properly before Court of Appeals), another majority panel utilized the same two-prong analysis a......
-
Moore v. State, 49A02-9703-CR-160
...rev'd. (Court of Appeals erred in deciding Indiana double jeopardy issue because it was not raised by defendant) and Thorpe v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (Indiana double jeopardy analysis has not changed and requires an examination of the jury instructions and informations) re......
-
Valentin v. State, 49S02-9711-PC-628
...concur. 1 See Richardson v. State, 687 N.E.2d 241 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Grafe v. State, 686 N.E.2d 890 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), Thorpe v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); Valentin v. State, 685 N.E.2d 1100 ...
-
Thorpe v. State, 52S05-9712-CR-679
...on July 16, 1997. The State sought rehearing. The Court of Appeals then issued a published opinion denying rehearing. Thorpe v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). Both the State and appellant Thorpe filed petitions to transfer jurisdiction to this Appellant raised five issues in his ......