Harris v. Oklahoma, 76-5663

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation433 U.S. 682,53 L.Ed.2d 1054,97 S.Ct. 2912
Docket NumberNo. 76-5663,76-5663
PartiesThomas Leon HARRIS v. State of OKLAHOMA
Decision Date29 June 1977

433 U.S. 682
97 S.Ct. 2912
53 L.Ed.2d 1054
Thomas Leon HARRIS


State of OKLAHOMA.

No. 76-5663.
June 29, 1977.

[97 S.Ct 2912] PER CURIAM.

A cleark in a Tulsa, Okla., grocery store was shot and killed by a companion of petitioner in the course of a robbery of the store by the two men. Petitioner was convicted of felony-murder in Oklahoma State court. The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case states that ‘[i]n a felony murder case, the proof of underlying felony [here robbery with firearms] is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction.555 P.2d 76, 80-81 (1976). Petitioner nevertheless was thereafter brought to trial and convicted on a seperate information charging the robbery with firearms, after denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that this prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy [97 S.Ct 2913] Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he had been already convicted of the offense in the felony-murder trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

1,2º When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.* In re *683 Neilsen, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 LEd. 118 (1889); cf. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). ‘[ ] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, .... cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.‘ In re Nielsen, supra,131 U.S., at 188, 9 S.Ct. at 676. See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970); Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333, 352, 27 S.Ct. 749, 754, 51 L.Ed. 1084 (1907).

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is


Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice MARSHALL joins, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion but in any event would reverse on a ground not addressed by the Court, namely, that the State did not prosecute the two informations in one proceeding. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
459 cases
  • United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • May 7, 1981
    ...at 448, 90 S.Ct. at 1196 (Harlan, J., concurring), with id. at 453-54, 90 S.Ct. at 1199 (Brennan, J., concurring), and Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 683, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 2913, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977) (Brennan, J., concurring), and, therefore, it would be irrational to apply this rule to t......
  • State v. Bernacki, SC 18674
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 26, 2012
    ...[the defendant] for the drug offense resembles the situation that produced our judgment of double jeopardy in Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 [97 S. Ct. 2912, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1054] (1977) (per curiam)," which "held that a subsequent prosecution for robbery with a firearm was barred by the [d]......
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Ross
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • April 28, 1995
    ...treating lesser-included offenses and the greater offense in which they are included as the "same offense." See Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). Properly understood, this approach does......
  • State v. Romero, 21-173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • December 15, 2021
    ...or federal courts. See Wikberg , 292 So.2d at 513-14. Regardless, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently found in Harris v. Oklahoma , 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977) (citations omitted) that "[w]hen ... conviction of a greater crime, [felony murder], cannot be had without ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...100 Harris v. City of Chicago, 266 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2001), 159 Harris v. Kado, 391 F. App’x 560 (7th Cir. 2010), 242 Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (1977), 148 Harrison v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 468 F. App’x 33 (2d Cir. 2012), 251 Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (1968), 138 Hart v.......
  • The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Evidence Handbook
    • January 1, 2016
    ...that double jeopardy may bar subsequent prosecution for any “lesser included offenses,” a rule set forth originally in Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (1977). See also Shute v. State of Texas, 117 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir. 1997) (applying “lesser included offense” analysis); United States v.......
  • Punish Once, Punish Twice: Ohio's Inconsistent Interpretation of it Multiple Counts Statute
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 36-3, May 2008
    • May 1, 2008
    ...the two offenses are not the same offense under Blockburger. Grady, 495 U.S. at 528 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977) (per curiam). 85509 U.S. 688 (1993). 86Id. at 691–94. One defendant in Dixon was held in contempt for violating a court order not......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT