Archive | Double jeopardy

RSS feed for this section

State v. Allen

State v. Allen, 2016 MT 185 (Aug. 2, 2016) (Rice, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court by denying Allen’s motion to dismiss multiple charges of violating an order of protection pursuant to § 46-11-410(2); and (2) whether the district court by denying Allen’s motion to dismiss multiple charges of violating an order of protection on double jeopardy grounds.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) this issue was not preserved for appeal.

Affirmed

Facts: Allen sent 35 messages to his ex-girlfriend, BD, in a two-hour period on day in September 2014. BD had an order of protection against Allen, and alerted the police to the messages.…

State v. Violette

State v. Violette, 2015 MT 67 (Feb. 24, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, appeal dismissed)

Issue: Whether state was required to elect between two offenses to avoid violating defendant’s protection from double jeopardy.

Short answer: No.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice

Facts: State charged Violette with aggravated assault and elder abuse.

Procedural Posture & Holding: Violette moved lower court for order that state had to elect between those offenses, arguing that prosecution for both offenses violated his protection from double jeopardy and Montana’s “multiple charges” statute, 46-11-410, MCA. District court denied motion, holding that elder abuse is neither lesser-included offense of aggravated assault nor specific instance of aggravated assault. Violette appeals, arguing that elder abuse is specific instance of aggravated assault, and the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal without prejudice and remands for trial.…

State v. Cline

State v. Cline, 2013 MT 188 (July 15, 2013) (5-2) (Morris, J., for the majority; Cotter, J. & McKinnon, J. dissenting)

Issue: Whether the state charge of theft by common scheme was an “equivalent offense” barred by the double jeopardy statute.

Short Answer: No.

Affirmed

State v. Torres

State v. Torres, 2013 MT 101 (April 16, 2013) (5-0) (Baker, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether Torres’ aggravated assault conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; (2) whether Torres’ burglary conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; and (3) whether the Court should exercise plain error review of Torres’ claim that his convictions violated double jeopardy.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; and (3) no.

Affirmed