Indiana Double Jeopardy Law

Navigating the complexities of Indiana’s double jeopardy law requires an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands the nuances of recent legal changes. Josiah Swinney, a highly skilled Indiana criminal lawyer, is dedicated to providing exceptional legal representation for clients facing criminal charges. With a deep understanding of Indiana’s double jeopardy protections, Attorney Swinney helps Hoosiers safeguard their rights and build robust defenses. This webpage explores the intricacies of double jeopardy in Indiana, recent landmark cases, and how Josiah Swinney’s expertise can make a difference in your case.

Understanding Double Jeopardy in Indiana

Double jeopardy is a fundamental principle in criminal law, enshrined in both the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution. It protects individuals from being prosecuted or punished multiple times for the same offense. In Indiana, double jeopardy is a critical defense strategy for those facing multiple charges or trials. However, recent changes in Indiana’s double jeopardy law have reshaped how these protections are applied, making it essential to work with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney like Josiah Swinney.

The concept of double jeopardy is often misunderstood. Many people use the term casually when facing multiple charges, but its legal application is far more complex. Double jeopardy protections in Indiana are divided into two main categories: procedural double jeopardy and substantive double jeopardy. Procedural double jeopardy prevents a defendant from being retried for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction, while substantive double jeopardy addresses whether multiple convictions or punishments for the same act in a single trial violate the law.

With recent updates to Indiana’s double jeopardy framework, the legal landscape has shifted significantly. These changes, driven by landmark Indiana Supreme Court decisions, have made it more challenging for defendants to rely on double jeopardy protections in certain cases. Attorney Josiah Swinney stays at the forefront of these developments, offering personalized legal strategies to protect his clients’ rights.

Recent Changes to Indiana Double Jeopardy Law

In the last five years, Indiana’s double jeopardy law has undergone significant transformations due to two pivotal Indiana Supreme Court decisions: Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020), and Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020). These cases overturned longstanding common-law tests, such as the “very same act test,” which courts previously used to determine whether a defendant could be convicted of multiple crimes arising from a single act.

Prior to Wadle and Powell, Indiana relied on a comprehensive analytical framework established in Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999). This framework treated procedural and substantive double jeopardy claims with equal weight under the Indiana Constitution. However, the unpredictable nature of these common-law tests often led to inconsistent outcomes, leaving defendants uncertain about their protections. The Wadle and Powell decisions sought to clarify and streamline the analysis, but they also introduced new complexities that require expert legal navigation.

Josiah Swinney, a seasoned Indiana criminal defense attorney, has extensive experience applying these new standards to protect his clients. His background as a former Deputy Attorney General gives him a unique perspective on how prosecutors approach double jeopardy cases, allowing him to craft effective defense strategies tailored to the updated legal framework.

The Wadle and Powell Decisions

The Wadle and Powell cases marked a turning point in Indiana’s double jeopardy jurisprudence. These decisions replaced the unpredictable common-law tests with a more structured approach, focusing on statutory interpretation and factual analysis. While this shift has brought greater clarity to the law, it has also limited the scope of substantive double jeopardy protections in some cases.

In Wadle v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court established a three-step test for analyzing substantive double jeopardy claims, which we will explore in detail later. This test prioritizes statutory language and the specific facts of the case, moving away from the broader, more subjective tests of the past. Similarly, Powell v. State addressed scenarios where a single criminal act violates a single statute but harms multiple victims, further refining the application of double jeopardy protections.

These decisions have made it more critical than ever to have a skilled criminal defense attorney who can interpret and apply the new rules effectively. Josiah Swinney’s deep knowledge of these cases ensures that his clients receive informed and strategic representation.

Procedural vs. Substantive Double Jeopardy

Understanding the distinction between procedural and substantive double jeopardy is essential for anyone facing criminal charges in Indiana. Procedural double jeopardy protects defendants from being retried for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction. This protection remains largely unchanged under the new legal framework established by Wadle and Powell. For example, if you are acquitted of a crime, the State cannot prosecute you again for that same offense.

Substantive double jeopardy, on the other hand, addresses whether a defendant can be convicted of multiple crimes for the same act within a single trial. This aspect of double jeopardy has been significantly impacted by the Wadle and Powell decisions. Under the old common-law tests, courts often relied on subjective criteria, such as whether the crimes involved the “very same act.” The new framework introduced by Wadle provides a more structured analysis but can result in reduced protections for defendants in certain cases.

Josiah Swinney’s expertise in both procedural and substantive double jeopardy allows him to identify opportunities to challenge multiple charges or convictions. His meticulous approach ensures that every aspect of your case is thoroughly examined to maximize your protections under Indiana law.

The Woodcock v. State Case

One notable case that illustrates the application of Indiana’s new double jeopardy rules is Woodcock v. State. In this case, Attorney Josiah Swinney, serving as Deputy Attorney General, played a key role in a published decision that clarified how double jeopardy applies when a single act harms multiple victims. The case involved a tragic incident in a nice area off Fall Creek, where the defendant, Woodcock, shot a young woman point-blank in the forehead. The bullet exited her head and struck her boyfriend, resulting in charges of murder and aggravated battery.

Under both the old and new double jeopardy tests, Attorney Swinney successfully argued that double jeopardy did not apply when a single act directly harms multiple victims. The court upheld Woodcock’s convictions for both crimes, demonstrating that the new framework allows for multiple convictions in such scenarios. This case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of Indiana’s double jeopardy law and working with an attorney who has hands-on experience with these issues.

Josiah Swinney’s involvement in Woodcock v. State underscores his expertise in criminal law and his ability to navigate complex legal challenges. His success in this case as a prosecutor equips him with a unique perspective, enabling him to anticipate prosecutorial strategies and build strong defenses for his clients.

How Josiah Swinney Can Help

Josiah Swinney is not just a criminal defense attorney; he is a dedicated advocate for Hoosiers facing criminal charges. With years of experience in Indiana’s criminal justice system, including his time as a Deputy Attorney General, Attorney Swinney brings a wealth of knowledge and a proven track record to every case. His deep understanding of Indiana’s double jeopardy law, combined with his commitment to personalized representation, makes him the ideal choice for anyone seeking a strong defense.

Attorney Swinney takes a client-centered approach, taking the time to understand the unique circumstances of each case. He meticulously reviews charging documents, statutory language, and case facts to identify opportunities to challenge multiple charges or convictions. His experience on both sides of the courtroom gives him a strategic advantage, allowing him to anticipate the prosecution’s moves and counter them effectively.

Whether you are facing charges that may implicate double jeopardy or other complex criminal law issues, Josiah Swinney is committed to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome. His reputation for excellence and his dedication to his clients make him a trusted ally in the fight for justice.

The Wadle Test for Substantive Double Jeopardy

The Wadle decision introduced a three-step test for analyzing substantive double jeopardy claims, providing a more structured approach to determining whether multiple convictions violate Indiana’s double jeopardy protections. This test is critical for defendants facing multiple charges arising from a single act or transaction. Below, we break down each step of the Wadle test and explain how an experienced criminal defense attorney like Josiah Swinney can help you navigate it.

Step 1: Statutory Language Analysis

The first step under Wadle is to examine the statutory language of the crimes charged to determine whether either statute expressly or implicitly permits multiple punishments. Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d at 248. This step is relatively straightforward, as few statutes explicitly authorize multiple punishments. For example, Indiana’s child-molesting statutes (I.C. § 35-42-4-3(a)(1), -3(b)) do not expressly permit multiple convictions for the same act.

However, the analysis requires a careful review of the statutory text to identify any implied authorizations for multiple punishments. This is where an experienced attorney’s expertise is invaluable. Josiah Swinney’s thorough understanding of Indiana’s criminal code allows him to identify potential double jeopardy violations at this stage and build a strong foundation for your defense.

Step 2: Included-Offense Analysis

If the statutes do not expressly permit multiple punishments, the second step under Wadle involves applying Indiana’s included-offense statute (I.C. § 35-31.5-2-168). This step determines whether one offense is inherently or factually included in another. An offense is factually included if the charging information alleges that the means used to commit the crime include all the elements of the alleged lesser offense. Norris v. State, 943 N.E.2d 362, 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Importantly, this analysis is limited to the facts alleged in the charging document, not evidence presented at trial. A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060, 1067 (Ind. 2024). If the charging information is ambiguous, courts must construe it in the defendant’s favor, creating a presumption of a double jeopardy violation. However, the State can rebut this presumption in the third step. Josiah Swinney’s meticulous attention to detail ensures that he thoroughly reviews charging documents to identify any ambiguities that can be leveraged in your favor.

Step 3: Single Transaction Analysis

The third step under Wadle is where most double jeopardy disputes are resolved. This step examines whether the charged offenses are “so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.” Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d at 249. If the offenses are separate transactions, there is no double jeopardy violation, even if one offense is included in the other.

This step requires a detailed analysis of the facts underlying the charges, making it a critical point where an experienced attorney can make a significant difference. Josiah Swinney’s ability to dissect the facts of your case and argue for a single transaction can be the key to reducing or dismissing multiple charges.

Why Choose Josiah Swinney for Your Defense

When facing criminal charges in Indiana, choosing the right attorney can make all the difference. Josiah Swinney stands out as a premier criminal defense attorney due to his extensive experience, deep legal knowledge, and unwavering commitment to his clients. His background as a Deputy Attorney General gives him a unique perspective on how the State builds its cases, allowing him to anticipate prosecutorial strategies and craft effective defenses.

Attorney Swinney’s success in high-profile cases, such as Woodcock v. State, demonstrates his ability to handle complex legal issues with skill and precision. His client-centered approach ensures that every case receives the attention and care it deserves, with personalized strategies tailored to the specific facts and circumstances. Whether you are facing charges involving double jeopardy or other criminal law issues, Josiah Swinney is dedicated to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome.

In addition to his legal expertise, Attorney Swinney is known for his compassion and dedication to his clients. He understands the stress and uncertainty that come with facing criminal charges and works tirelessly to provide clarity, support, and aggressive representation. When you choose Josiah Swinney, you are choosing a trusted advocate who will fight for your future.

Contact Josiah Swinney Today

If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges in Indiana, don’t leave your future to chance. The complexities of Indiana’s double jeopardy law require an experienced criminal defense attorney who can navigate the legal system and protect your rights. Josiah Swinney offers personalized, strategic representation to help you achieve the best possible outcome in your case.

Contact Josiah Swinney today for a comprehensive review of your case. With his deep knowledge of Indiana’s criminal law, including the latest developments in double jeopardy, Attorney Swinney is ready to fight for you. Don’t wait—reach out now to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward a strong defense.

DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked. Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an Indiana Criminal Defense attorney or attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.  Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.