State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 31 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 48,48 |
| Citation | 682 S.W.2d 918 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellant, v. Rickey E. MITCHELL, Appellee. 682 S.W.2d 918 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Gordon W. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., W.J. Michael Cody, Atty. Gen. and Reporter, Nashville, for appellant.
Charles G. Black, Memphis, for appellee.
The issue before this court is whether the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions bar a prosecution for vehicular homicide when the defendant, prior to the victim's death, had pled guilty to and been sentenced in municipal court for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant, disregarding a stop sign, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. We find no double jeopardy violation and reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing the indictment for vehicular homicide.
A truck driven by defendant collided with a car driven by Lawrence John Pleasants on February 20, 1982. A state warrant was issued, and defendant appeared in the Municipal Court of Memphis two days after the accident where he waived a jury trial and entered his pleas of guilty. He was given a 60 day sentence, of which 58 days were suspended, and a $300.00 fine for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. He was fined $25.00 for disregarding the stop sign, and another $250.00 for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In addition, defendant was placed on probation for 11 months, 29 days, and his operator's license was suspended for six months. On March 2, 1982, Pleasants died, allegedly as the result of injuries he received in the February 20, 1982, accident.
On June 15, 1982, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the defendant on two counts of vehicular homicide. The first count charged that defendant, "did unlawfully and feloniously kill Lawrence John Pleasants by the operation of a motor vehicle" with the killing "being the proximate result of the said Rickey E. Mitchell's intoxication." The second count charged that defendant "did operate a motor vehicle ... at speeds in excess of the posted or legal speed limits" with the victim's death being the proximate result of "conduct creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury ... under circumstances manifesting ... extreme indifference to the value of human life."
The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the second prosecution violated the double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 10, of the Tennessee Constitution. The motion to dismiss was denied, but an interlocutory appeal was taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals under Rule 9, T.R.A.P. A majority of that court reversed the dismissal of defendant's plea of double jeopardy, and dismissed the indictment charging vehicular homicide.
The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, states that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Article 1, Section 10 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that "no person shall, for the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Denton
...U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977); Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912); State v. Mitchell, 682 S.W.2d 918, 919 (Tenn.1984).14 When the legislature has made its intent clear that cumulative punishment is intended, such as in the case of felony ......
-
Daniel v. State
...assault and battery. E.g., Thomas, 400 N.E.2d at 904; People v. Harding, 443 Mich. 693, 506 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1993); State v. Mitchell, 682 S.W.2d 918, 920 (Tenn. 1984). Courts, however, have also applied the exception when the evidence of the greater offense existed at the time of the or......
-
Mitchell v. Cody
..."when an element of the greater offense has not occurred at the time of the prosecution for the lesser offense...." Tennessee v. Mitchell, 682 S.W.2d 918, 920 (Tenn.1984). The Tennessee court followed Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912), where the United S......
-
State v. Slee
...It does not require a showing of due diligence. United States v. Walker, 546 F.Supp. 805, 810 (D.C. Hawaii 1982). State v. Mitchell, 682 S.W.2d 918, 920 (Tenn. 1984) (determining that subsequent prosecution for vehicular homicide after initial prosecution for DUI did not violate double jeop......