Opinion ID: 2576140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Double Jeopardy in Successive Prosecution Cases

Text: Article 1, section 10 of the Hawai`i Constitution provides the following protection: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy[.] The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution similarly provides that nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb[.] These constitutional safeguards are commonly referred to as providing protection against double jeopardy. In State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 865 P.2d 150 (1994), this court pointed out that double jeopardy provides protection in three scenarios: It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 454, 865 P.2d at 154 (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)).
Successive prosecution cases occur when the defendant is prosecuted for an offense, then is prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal or conviction. Multiple prosecution (again multiple prosecution,  not multiple punishments ) cases occur when the defendant is prosecuted for the same offense at the same time in two different courts, e.g., district court and family court. Both successive prosecution and multiple prosecution cases require more than one prosecution. In contrast, in multiple punishments  cases, there is a single prosecution after which the defendant is punished multiple times for the same offense. [15] The Lessary facts presented one of the two successive prosecution scenarios (as distinguished from the multiple punishments scenario) following an alleged criminal episode (that spanned multiple hours) with his estranged wife as the victim. Lessary was charged by complaint in district court with terroristic threatening and kidnapping of his estranged wife (which was later amended to unlawful imprisonment). Id. at 449, 865 P.2d at 152-53. On the same day, Lessary was charged by complaint in family court with abuse of a family member. Id. at 449, 865 P.2d at 152. Lessary pled no contest to the abuse charge, and was sentenced to five days of incarceration and one year of probation. Id. at 449-50, 865 P.2d at 152. Lessary subsequently moved to dismiss the terroristic threatening and unlawful imprisonment charges on double jeopardy grounds. Id. at 450, 865 P.2d at 152. The motion to dismiss was granted, and the prosecution appealed. Id. at 450-51, 865 P.2d at 152-53.
In our analysis of double jeopardy in this successive prosecution case, this court discussed the three tests that courts have applied in determining whether offenses are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes: 1. The same elements test initially set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): [t]he applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 452, 865 P.2d at 153 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180)(alteration in original). 2. The same conduct test set forth in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 521, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990): the Double Jeopardy Clause bars any subsequent prosecution in which the government, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 457-58, 865 P.2d at 155 (quoting Grady, 495 U.S. at 521, 110 S.Ct. 2084). 3. The same episode test set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453-54, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring): all offenses `that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction' are considered to be the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 458, 865 P.2d at 155-56 (quoting Ashe, 397 U.S. at 453-54, 90 S.Ct. 1189).
After discussing each of these tests in the context of the Lessary successive prosecution facts, we rejected the application of the Blockburger same elements test and the Ashe same episode test. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 457-59, 865 P.2d at 155-56. With respect to the same episode test, we concluded that while the double jeopardy clause should protect an individual from being twice put in jeopardy for a single act, it should not protect an individual from separate prosecutions for separate acts. Id. at 458, 865 P.2d at 156. With respect to the Blockburger same elements test, we concluded that its protection was inadequate in successive prosecution cases because its focus on the statutory definitions of offenses did not prevent the government from initiating multiple prosecutions against an individual based on a single act as long as the subsequent prosecutions were for offenses with different elements. Id. at 456-57, 865 P.2d at 155. We held that the Hawai`i Constitution provides greater protection against successive prosecutions than does the United States Constitution, and adopted the same conduct test in successive prosecution cases: Although the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution does not bar the prosecution of either the Unlawful Imprisonment or Terroristic Threatening charges, we hold that the Hawai`i Constitution provides greater protection against multiple prosecutions than does the United States Constitution. The double jeopardy clause of the Hawai`i Constitution prohibits the State from pursuing multiple prosecutions of an individual for the same conduct. Prosecutions are for the same conduct if any act of the defendant is alleged to constitute all or part of the conduct elements of the offenses charged in the respective prosecutions. Under the same conduct test, prosecution of the Unlawful Imprisonment charge is barred while prosecution of the Terroristic Threatening charge is allowed. Id. at 462, 865 P.2d at 157. We take this opportunity to reconfirm that the same conduct test is the proper test to be applied in successive prosecution cases to determine whether an offense is the same offense for double jeopardy purposes under our Hawai`i Constitution.