holding that the State may retry a defendant for a different offense, provided the statute of limitations has not run and double jeopardy has not attached
How later courts described this case
- holding that the State may retry a defendant for a different offense, provided the statute of limitations has not run and double jeopardy has not attached
- Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits state from prosecuting defendant for lesser offense included within the offense alleged in first indictment, since, for purposes of Clause, greater offense and lesser included offense are same offense
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, P.J.,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court except to the extent that it specifies a particular procedure for protecting appellant from violation of his double jeopardy rights. The State should be prohibited from putting on evidence of a single theft that could have been proved under the original indictment. But jeopardy has not attached to the “the one constituent theft offense that most closely resembles” the one pled (whatever that might mean) or any other particular theft that the State could have proved under the indictment. To suggest that the procedure mandated by the Court is the only proper procedure is contrary to our on-or-about jurisprudence.