Court Opinion

ID: 9669485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:57:11.571148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:57.144181
License: Public Domain

*690Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
I agree that under the principle announced in State v. Woodfork, 239 Neb. 720, 478 N.W.2d 248 (1991), the trial court erroneously sustained the defendant’s plea in bar. However, I adhere to the view that the Woodfork majority incorrectly interpreted Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S. Ct. 2084, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1990).
Moreover, even if that interpretation were correct, I would hold that the trial court correctly sustained the defendant’s plea in bar under the stricture of Neb. Const, art. I, § 12, that no “person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” No citizen of this state ought to have to defend subsequent prosecutions for the same conduct simply because the left hand of the prosecutorial bureaucracy refuses to take the trouble to learn and coordinate with what the right hand is planning.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.