Hardley v. State

I concur with respect to Part I of the majority opinion. However, I respectfully dissent as to Parts II and III.

II

Double Jeopardy

Hardley claims that under the “actual evidence” test of Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) the two convictions violate double jeopardy considerations. I agree.

The State maintains that the evidentiary facts and the charging information “demonstrate two separate incidents.” (Appel-lee’s Br. 11). The State supports this position by concluding that the battery conviction was based “exclusively on the slapping of Ms. Richmond, while the Criminal Confinement…