Boss v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge.
Carolyn Boss brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the charging information on double jeopardy grounds. Boss presents one issue for our review: Did the trial court properly deny Boss’s motion to dismiss the charging information when it concluded that the enforcement of various city ordinances did not constitute punishment and that the current prosecu*19tion was therefore not a second prosecution for the same offense?
We affirm.
Because no trial has yet occurred, we glean the facts from the probable cause affidavit.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jewell v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
- Robert M. Gates v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Court of Appeals · 2013
- Boss v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
- David S. Healey v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2013
- Monroe County, Indiana and Monroe County Plan Commission v. Boathouse Apartments, LLC (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.