Opinion ID: 1735004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: double jeopardyits contours

Text: The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, provides in part: [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Neb. Const. art. I, § 12, provides: No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause to protect against three distinct abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2089, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). This court has not construed Nebraska's double jeopardy clause to provide any greater protections than those guaranteed by the federal Constitution. In United States v. Halper , the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a civil-administrative sanction could constitute punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. The Court held: In making this assessment [of whether a sanction constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes], the labels criminal and civil are not of paramount importance.... The notion of punishment, as we commonly understand it, cuts across the division between the civil and the criminal law, and for the purposes of assessing whether a given sanction constitutes multiple punishment barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, we must follow the notion where it leads. 490 U.S. at 447-48, 109 S.Ct. at 1901. In deciding whether a civil penalty constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes, it is immaterial whether the civil penalty precedes or follows the criminal proceeding. U.S. v. Sanchez-Escareno, 950 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied 506 U.S. 841, 113 S.Ct. 123, 121 L.Ed.2d 78 (1992). See, also, Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 1958, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (if there is a constitutional prohibition on multiple punishments, the order of punishment cannot possibly make any difference); State v. Hanson, 532 N.W.2d 598 (Minn.App.1995) (Randall, J., concurring). Stubblefield assigns as error that because he has already had a tax assessed against him on the marijuana he possessed, to criminally prosecute him for possession of the same marijuana with intent to deliver would subject him to multiple punishment and/or a second prosecution for the same offense. Thus, we must determine whether the assessment of a tax, penalty, and interest pursuant to the drug tax statutes and the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver under § 28-416 constitute the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy.