Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Clause even when a criminal conviction arises out of the same incident. Halper, supra, 490 U.S. at 448-49, 109 S.Ct. at 1902, 104 L.Ed.2d at 502. Furthermore, defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the domestic violence proceeding was between the victim and defendant and did not involve the State. Halper states that “[t]he protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause are not triggered by litigation between private parties.” Id. at 451, 109 S.Ct. at 1903, 104 L.Ed.2d at 503. Since the domestic violence action in this case did not involve the State, the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated. Ibid., see also Browning-Ferns Indus., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 260, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 2912, 106 L.Ed.2d 219, 228 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the trial court properly denied 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that forfeitures may violate the eighth amendment excessive fines clause (B) holding that the fines imposed by the challenged city ordinances are not excessive even if the excessive fines clause is applicable (C) holding that punitive damages are not fines (D) holding that excessive fines clause of eighth amendment does not apply to punitive damage awards between private parties (E) holding that excessive fines clause does not apply to civiljury award of punitive fines
Output (English): holding that the fines imposed by the challenged city ordinances are not excessive even if the excessive fines clause is applicable