# People v. Fields

> California Supreme Court · May 2, 1996 · 13 Cal. 4th 289

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534394

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL DOUGLAS FIELDS, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 2, 1996
- **Citations:** 13 Cal. 4th 289; 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 282; 96 Daily Journal DAR 5135; 914 P.2d 832; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3133; 1996 Cal. LEXIS 1905
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Lucas, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534394

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that double-jeopardy principles did not bar retrial of greater offense on which jury expressly deadlocked, where jury returned conviction on lesser charge; but statute barred retrial
- holding that conviction of a lesser included offense was not an implied acquittal of the greater offense on which the jury expressly deadlocked

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment. I also generally concur in the opinion prepared for the court by former Chief Justice Lucas. I write separately only to make the following observation. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Benton v. Maryland (1969) 395 U.S. 784, 793-796 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 707, 715-717 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 ]), “protects” a defendant “against a second prosecution for the same offense” “after conviction” as well as “after acquittal.” (North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) 395 U.S. 711, 717 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 664-665 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 ].) For present purposes, the “same offense” encompasses the greater including offense and the lesser included offense. (Brown v. Ohio (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 164-169 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 187, 193-196 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 ].) Hence, the double jeopardy clause protects defendant against a second prosecution for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the greater including offense, after conviction for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the lesser included offense.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied June 12, 1996, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534394. Public record. Not legal advice.