# North Carolina v. Pearce

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 23, 1969 · 395 U.S. 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424095

## Case

- **Full name:** NORTH CAROLINA Et Al. v. PEARCE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 23, 1969
- **Citations:** 395 U.S. 711; 89 S. Ct. 2072; 23 L. Ed. 2d 656; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1165
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by White
- **Judges:** Stewart, Douglas, Black, Harlan, White, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 6,661 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989).
- Negative treatments: 8
- Distinguished by: 48
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424095

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the “guarantee [within the Double Jeopardy Clause] has been said to consist of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense a…
- holding that a judge who imposes a more severe sentence after the original sentence is successfully attacked must affirmatively state objective reasons for the harsher sentence to ensure that vindictiveness against the defendant plays no part in the sentence he receives after …
- holding that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction, thus affirming defendant’s higher sentence on being reconvicted, after he had been tried and convicted, appealed, and won a new …
- explaining that double jeopardy is not implicated where a defendant successfully appeals his conviction, has a new trial, and receives a higher sentence because "the original conviction has, at the defendant's behest, been wholly nullified and the slate wiped clean"
- stating that if a defendant receives a higher sentence after successful appeal, the reasons must “be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice White,
concurring in part.
I join the Court’s opinion except that in my view Part II-C should authorize an increased sentence on retrial based on any objective, identifiable factual data not known to the trial judge at the time of the original sentencing proceeding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424095. Public record. Not legal advice.