Opinion ID: 1930879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 31

Heading: whether the defendant's constitutional protection against double jeopardy was violated.

Text: ś 81. Dooley testified on his own behalf, and as a result of his testimony, the State called H.G. [7] to testify in rebuttal. At trial, King, through counsel, acknowledged, I don't believe [H.G.]'s testimony would have anything to do with my client. However, here on appeal, King complains that, since H.G. is the victim in the severed count of his and Dooley's indictment, allowing H.G.'s testimony in this case gave the State a double `bite at the apple,' allowing the State a dry run at trying Dooley in the H.G. case. Since H.G.'s charge was against Dooley only, as acknowledged by King at trial, King has no stake in this issue, and no standing to complain. ś 82. King also argues, without clear explanation, that the double jeopardy clause is somehow implicated. It is obvious to this Court that the prohibition against double jeopardy was not violated in this case. ś 83. This assignment is without merit.