Harris v. Oklahoma
| Decision Date | 29 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-5663,76-5663 |
| Citation | 433 U.S. 682,53 L.Ed.2d 1054,97 S.Ct. 2912 |
| Parties | Thomas Leon HARRIS v. State of OKLAHOMA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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 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).
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 proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
...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 the decision of the grand jury or I......
-
State v. Bernacki
...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]ouble [j]eopardy......
-
State v. Allen
...would bar later prosecution of the predicate felony after a conviction for felony murder based on it, see Harris v. Oklahoma , 433 U.S. 682, 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), but that is not the case here. Sammantha was convicted of child abuse as charged in Count 3 during the sam......
-
US v. Whitehorn
...on the other." In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188, 9 S.Ct. 672, 676, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889);155 see also, Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977); Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 100 S.Ct. 2260, 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U.S. 1053, 97 S.Ct......
-
Rico, Merger, and Double Jeopardy
...double jeopardy is beyond the scope of this Article. 46. 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 47. Id. at 304 (emphasis supplied). 48. Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 (1977); Payne v. Virginia, 468 U.S. 1062, reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1250 49. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977). 50. Some courts have called th......
-
Table of Cases
...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
...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.......
-
Table of Authorities
...Insurance Co. , 138 F.R.D. 655 (S.D. Ind. 1991) ........................................................ 105 Harris v. Oklahoma , 433 U.S. 682, on remand , 572 P.2d 245 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977) ... 142 Hasbrouck. v. Texaco, Inc. , 842 F.2d 1034 (9th Cir.), aff’d , 496 U.S. 543 (1990) .............