Court Opinion

ID: 9855454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:25:16.598468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:46.912259
License: Public Domain

Judge BECTON
concurring in the result.
Deeming it significant that defendant’s driving under the influence and involuntary manslaughter charges were first joined for trial, I concur in the result. And I understand that the double jeopardy clause provides three separate guarantees:
It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. [2] It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. [3] And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 23 L.Ed. 2d 656, 664-5, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 (1960). (Footnotes omitted.) However, the fact that the jury could not reach a verdict on the involuntary manslaughter charge distinguishes this case from Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 65 L.Ed. 2d 228, 100 S.Ct. 2260 (1980). Defendant could have been convicted of both offenses at a joint trial. *585Whether judgment would have had to have been arrested on one of the convictions is a question we need not decide.