holding that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
- stating that convictions do not violate double jeopardy principles when “the facts demonstrate separate and distinct violations of the statute”
- where unit of prosecution was focused upon an individual victim and there fore multiple punishment for a single transaction did not violate double jeopardy principles
- in case involving multiple charges of malicious assault, “the legislature intended for each ‘wound’ or ‘bodily injury’ motivated by an intent to ‘maim, disfigure, disable or kill’ to be the proper unit of prosecution.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KETCHUM, C.J.,
dissenting:
The defendant stabbed the victim during a single, brief episode. Following this single incident, the defendant was charged with three counts of malicious assault. Charging a defendant with three counts of malicious assault following a single incident is a clear double jeopardy violation.
In Syllabus Point 1 of State v. Rummer, 189 W.Va. 369 , 432 S.E.2d 39 (1993), this Court held:
‘The Double Jeopardy Clause in Article III, Section 5 of the West Virginia Constitution, provides immunity from further prosecution where a court having jurisdiction has acquitted the accused. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. It also prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.’ Syllabus Point 1, Conner v. Griffith, 160 W.Va. 680 , 238 S.E.2d 529 (1977).
Our Constitution prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. The defendant was charged and sentenced on three counts of malicious assault following a single, brief incident. The defendant should have been charged with one count of malicious assault.
For this reason, I respectfully dissent. I am authorized by Justice Benjamin to state that he joins in this dissent.