Opinion ID: 1924014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Point 1, Double Jeopardy

Text: Jeopardy attaches in a non-jury case when the accused is brought to trial upon a sufficiently pleaded charge before a court of competent jurisdiction and the court begins to hear evidence. See 21 Am. Jur.2d Criminal Law § 175, and State v. Slorah, 118 Me. 203, 208, 106 A. 768, 4 A. L.R. 1256. Our District Court is a non-jury court. It had jurisdiction of the party and the subject matter. A plea of guilt is in itself a conviction. It is as conclusive as a verdict of a jury. The Court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence.    `The sentence is the judgment.' Jenness v. State, 144 Me. 40, 44, 64 A.2d 184, 186. Under such circumstances, an appeal stays the execution of sentence, Rule 38 District Court Crim.Rules, and this appellant stood before the Superior Court convicted, by his plea, of assaults on Officers E and W, and sentence stayed. This conviction stood until the Superior Court upon appeal should allow him to withdraw his plea of guilt,which withdrawal was not granted. Generally, a former conviction by a plea of guilty is held a sufficient basis to sustain a defense of double jeopardy in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. 75 A.L.R.2d 683, § 3, page 686, from which see Commonwealth v. Goddard, 13 Mass. 455 (1816) and Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 2 S.Ct. 443, 27 L.Ed. 506 (1883). This constitutional safeguard against a person's being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense was here properly invoked and the indictments charging the appellant with assaults upon Officers E and W were erroneously prosecuted. The appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss these indictments is sustained.