State v. Steele
| Decision Date | 03 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 67039,67039 |
| Citation | 387 So.2d 1175 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Robert J. STEELE. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., G. Fred Ours, Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Attys., Russell Stegeman, Legal Intern, for plaintiff-relator.
Carey R. Varnado, Jacob Kansas, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent.
The State proceeded to prosecute Steele for negligent injuring subsequent to a plea bargain under which he pled guilty to D.W.I. and the State dismissed a charge of reckless driving.Steele contends that he is being subjected to double jeopardy and the trial court granted his motion to quash.The issue is whether there is double jeopardy under the "same evidence test".
On August 16, 1979, defendant, Robert J. Steele, attempted to change lanes near the intersection of St. Claude Avenue and Desire Street in New Orleans.His car struck a taxi and propelled it into a pedestrian, Charlotte Nesbitt, standing on the corner.Steele was arrested and charged with reckless operation of a vehicle, driving while intoxicated and negligent injuring.As a result of a plea bargain in Traffic Court for the City of New Orleans, the charge of reckless operation of a vehicle was dismissed and Steele pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated.Subsequently, the State undertook to proceed on the negligent injuring charge in Criminal District Court.The trial court quashed the charge on the ground of double jeopardy.Upon application of the State, a writ of certiorari was granted to review that ruling.
Both the Louisiana and United States Constitutions prohibit placing a person twice in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense.United States Constitution, Amendment 5;Louisiana Constitution of 1974, Art. 1, § 15.
LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 596 provides:
Separate statutory crimes need not be identical in constituent elements or in actual proof to be the same within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition.Brown v. Ohio, 423 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187(1977);1 J. Bishop, New Criminal Law, § 1051 (8th ed. 1892);Comment, Twice in Jeopardy, 75 YaleL.J. 262, 268-269(1965);State v. Doughty, 379 So.2d 1088(La., 1980).
The test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court for determining whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes is whether each statute requires proof of an additional element which the other does not.Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306(1932).
The "same evidence" test is used in Louisiana.State v. Bonfanti, 262 La. 153, 262 So.2d 504(1972);State v. Didier, 262 La. 364, 263 So.2d 322(1972).If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one.The test depends on the evidence necessary for conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial.SeeState v. Doughty, supra.
The "same evidence test" is somewhat broader in concept than Blockburger, the central idea being that one should not be punished (or put in jeopardy) twice for the same course of conduct.
The test must be applied first to the charge of D.W.I. and negligent injuring.The two crimes in question do not, according to their definitions, appear to be the same offense.Operating a vehicle while intoxicated is defined as "the operating of any motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel or other means of conveyance while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, narcotic drugs, central nervous system stimulants, hallucinogenic drugs or barbituates."LSA-R.S. 14:98(A).Negligent injuring is "the inflicting of any injury upon the person of another by criminal negligence."LSA-R.S. 14:39.Clearly, there are several elements involved in D.W.I. which are not involved in negligent injuring while the latter charge involves elements not required in D.W.I.The same evidence could not convict of both charges.
Thus, each offense requires proof which the other does not and the two offenses are not subject to a double jeopardy plea.
The "same evidence test" must next be applied to the charges of reckless driving and negligent injuring, since the reckless driving charge was dismissed as a result of a plea bargain and could not be resurrected against defendant.Reckless operation of a vehicle is defined in LSA-R.S. 14:99 as "the operation of any motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel, or other means of conveyance in a criminally negligent or reckless manner."Under a theoretical application of the Blockburger test, each crime requires proof of an element that the other does not.Reckless operation requires proof that some type of a vehicle was being utilized; negligent injuring does not.Negligent injuring requires proof of an injury; reckless operation does not.
Under the same evidence test, applied in the context of the present case, the proof of the second offense, i. e., driving the vehicle in a criminally negligent manner and injuring the pedestrian would have been sufficient to convict of the first offense, i. e., reckless driving.Therefore, the prosecution of defendant for negligent injuring following the dismissal of the reckless operation charge amounted to a violation of the plea bargain with the defendant by the State.The State was relabeling the offense to charge defendant a second time with the same criminal conduct.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court granting defendant's motion to quash based on double jeopardy is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MARCUS, J., dissents and assigns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Cain, Civil Action No. 06-2897.
...relied on the "same evidence" test to evaluate double jeopardy claims. State v. Miller, 571 So.2d 603, 606 (La.1990). In State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (La. 1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained the "same evidence" test as If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of on......
-
Johnson v. Louisiana
...provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. The second test is the "same evidence" test. In State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175, 1177 (La.1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that test as If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime wo......
-
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross
...same offense under a plea of double [94-0695 La. 18] jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy of only one." State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175, 1177 (La.1980). "The 'same evidence' test depends upon the proof required to convict, not the evidence actually introduced at trial." State......
-
State v. Sandifer
...conviction of the other, focusing "on the evidence necessary for conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial." State v. Steele , 387 So.2d 1175, 1177 (La. 1980). 00–1258 at pp. 3–4, 799 So.2d at 455.Although the gang-related murders of Ms. Pierce and Brianna constituted an act in f......