State v. Hopkins
| Decision Date | 13 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,51 |
| Citation | 279 N.C. 473,183 S.E.2d 657 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald E. HOPKINS. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Staff Atty. Richard N. League, Raleigh, for the State.
Wilkinson & Vosburgh, by James R. Vosburgh, Washington, for defendant.
The constitutional right not to be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense, like other constitutional rights, may be waived by the defendant and such waiver is usually implied from his action or inaction when brought to trial in the subsequent proceeding. Harris v. United States, 8 Cir., 237 F.2d 274; Brady v. United States, 10 Cir., 24 F.2d 405; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 277. In State v. Gainey, 265 N.C. 437, 144 S.E.2d 249, speaking through Chief Justice Denny, this Court said: The Supreme Court of Kansas said in Cox v. State, 197 Kan. 395, 416 P.2d 741, 747, 'Even if double jeopardy is raised as a defense it is abandoned by a sebsequent plea of guilty.' In Berg v. United States, 176 F.2d 122, cert. den. 338 U.S. 876, 70 S.Ct. 137, 94 L.Ed. 537, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said, 'Double jeopardy is a personal defense and is waived by plea of guilty.' See also, 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 277.
The present defendant, through his then privately employed counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of nonfelonious breaking and entering after his previously entered plea of former jeopardy was overruled. He having thereby waived his right, if any, to dismissal of the charge on the ground of former jeopardy, it is not necessary for us to determine whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the evidence offered by him, in the superior court, in support of his plea of former jeopardy, was incompetent for the reason that parol testimony is not admissible to establish, explain or contradict a judgment of a court of record, i.e., the district court. For the same reason it is not necessary for us to determine whether the evidence, if admissible, would be sufficient to show that by the proceeding in the superior court he was unlawfully placed in jeopardy a second time for the same offense. We therefore, express to opinion on either of those questions.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harwood
...disc. review denied,360 N.C. 489, 632 S.E.2d 768 (2006). Thus, as the Supreme Court explicitly held in State v. Hopkins, 279 N.C. 473, 476, 183 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1971), a plea of guilty waives a defendant's right to seek dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. By pleading guilty to all ninetee......
-
State v. Corbett, COA07-856.
...867, 870 (2002) (citing State v. Dickson, 151 N.C.App. 136, 564 S.E.2d 640 (2002)). The State contends that under State v. Hopkins, 279 N.C. 473, 183 S.E.2d 657 (1971), defendant has no right to an appeal. We In Hopkins, the defendant was indicted in superior court for first degree burglary......
-
State v. Thompson, 663A84
...v. McKenzie, 292 N.C. 170, 232 S.E.2d 424 (1977); State v. Baldwin, 226 N.C. 295, 37 S.E.2d 898 (1946); see also State v. Hopkins, 279 N.C. 473, 183 S.E.2d 657 (1971). Here, the defendant did not plead double jeopardy nor did he make any argument regarding this issue to the trial judge. Als......
-
State v. Mathis
...waiver is usually implied from his action or inaction when brought to trial in the subsequent proceeding." State v. Hopkins , 279 N.C. 473, 475-76, 183 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1971). To avoid waiving this right, a defendant must properly raise the issue of double jeopardy before the trial court. S......