Opinion ID: 853758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Federal Double Jeopardy

Text: To convict of robbery, the State must prove the following essential elements under the statute: the defendant knowingly or intentionally took property from David Turner or from the presence of David Turner by using or threatening the use of force, or the defendant knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused another person to commit robbery. IND.CODE §§ 35-42-5-1 & 35-41-2-4. The conspiracy statute provides in part: (a) A person conspires to commit a felony when, with intent to commit the felony, he agrees with another person to commit the felony. A conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony of the same class as the underlying felony.... (b) The state must allege and prove that either the person or the person with whom he agreed performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. IND.CODE § 35-41-5-2. To convict of conspiracy to commit robbery, the State must prove the following essential elements: the defendant agreed with another person to commit the crime of robbery with the intent to commit the robbery and either the defendant or another party to the agreement performed an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. Applying the Blockburger test, we find that both the robbery charge and the conspiracy charge contain at least one separate and distinct element. The robbery charge requires the State to prove that the defendant or his accomplice took property from Turner or from his presence, which is not required to prove the conspiracy charge, and the conspiracy charge requires the State to prove an agreement and at least one overt act in the furtherance of the agreement, which are not required to prove the robbery charge. Under federal double jeopardy jurisprudence, robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery are not the same offense. [21] We conclude, therefore, that the defendant's federal double jeopardy rights were not violated.