Court Opinion

ID: 9745196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:41:09.125906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.507292
License: Public Domain

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 *482constitutional 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).