Double jeopardy principles prohibit, among other things, a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal. To determine whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes, we must look to see if each offense requires proof of an element that the other offense does not. If so, the offenses are not the same. The offense of conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious injury and the offense of robbery resulting in serious injury are not the same offense. Each offense requires proof of an element the other does not.
Conspiracy requires an agreement and robbery requires the taking of property.
By statute, the offenses are not the same. This does not end our inquiry, though, because we must look beyond the statutory language to the manner in which the offenses were charged. If from the manner in which the offenses were actually charged it appears that one offense becomes a 'species of lesser-included offense,' then the double jeopardy principles bar a second prosecution after acquittal. Under a double jeopardy analysis, a lesser included offense and the greater offense are the same offense. Thus, if the underlying offense is charged by the State as the overt act element of the conspiracy offense, the underlying offense is a lesser-included offense of the conspiracy offense as charged, and double jeopardy prohibits a second prosecution for the underlying offense after acquittal of the conspiracy charge.