Legal Opinion · Dissent

Poore v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1997No. 29S05-9708-PC-470Published

1DissentSullivan, Justice

Although addressing itself to the readjudi-eation of habitual offender status after reversal on appeal, Justice Boehm’s opinion appears to stand for the proposition that re-prosecution of a criminal charge after reversal on appeal is subject to the requirements of Ind. Criminal Rule 4(B). To the extent that the opinion so holds, I dissent. Criminal Rule 4(B) makes no reference to holding a criminal defendant for reprosecution after reversal and I do not believe that we should read such a requirement into the rule. This contrasts to our Crim.R. 12(D)(1) which specifically provides that that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. United States v. EwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Fortson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Donalds v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1981

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API