William D. Wyatt, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 84A01-1609-CR-2219

On December 5–6, 2015, William D. Wyatt, Jr. visited Bradley Phillips’ room in Terre Haute; after initially leaving, Wyatt returned with his cousin and assaulted Phillips.
Wyatt punched Phillips multiple times and then stabbed him in the chest with a knife, collapsing Phillips’ lung and creating a substantial risk of death.
The State charged Wyatt with Count 1: aggravated battery (Level 3), Count 2: battery by means of a deadly weapon (Level 5), and Count 3: battery resulting in serious bodily injury (Level 5), plus habitual offender enhancement.
A jury convicted Wyatt on all counts; the trial court merged Count 3 into Count 1, sentenced Wyatt to 13 years on Count 1 plus a 9-year habitual enhancement, and 4 years concurrent on Count 2 (aggregate 22 years).
On appeal Wyatt argued the convictions for aggravated battery and battery by means of a deadly weapon violate Article I, § 14 of the Indiana Constitution (double jeopardy) under the actual-evidence test.
The prosecutor’s charging information and closing argument relied on the stabbing as the factual basis for both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions for aggravated battery and battery by means of a deadly weapon violate Indiana’s double jeopardy clause under the actual-evidence test	State relied on distinct statutory elements to support separate convictions	Wyatt argued the same evidentiary fact (the stabbing) was used to prove both offenses so convictions duplicate prohibited by Article I, § 14	Reversed in part: the court held there is a reasonable possibility the jury used the same fact (the stabbing) to convict on both counts and vacated the battery-by-deadly-weapon conviction

Cross v. State, 15 N.E.3d 569 (Ind. 2014) (articulates same-offense test under Indiana Constitution)
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (remedy framework for double jeopardy violations)
Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013) (explains actual-evidence test and consideration of charging information, instructions, and counsel arguments)
Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (clarifies that substantially more than a logical possibility is required to show actual-evidence overlap)
Strong v. State, 29 N.E.3d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (noting de novo review of double jeopardy claims)
Stafford v. State, 736 N.E.2d 326 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (example of double jeopardy violation where same act supported two charges)