AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was charged with vehicular homicide and driving while intoxicated after an incident in which he allegedly caused a death while driving under the influence of alcohol. During the trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of driving while intoxicated but was unable to reach a verdict on the vehicular homicide charge, resulting in a mistrial on that count (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, May 1990: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but the jury was deadlocked on the vehicular homicide charge, leading to a mistrial. The court directed a retrial on the vehicular homicide charge (paras 3-4).
• District Court, Date Unspecified: The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the vehicular homicide charge, arguing that a retrial would violate double jeopardy principles. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss (paras 4-5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the vehicular homicide charge, asserting that double jeopardy principles do not bar a retrial following a mistrial caused by a hung jury (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that a retrial on the vehicular homicide charge would violate double jeopardy protections, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Grady v. Corbin and arguing that driving while intoxicated is a lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Does the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy preclude a retrial of the vehicular homicide charge following a mistrial caused by a hung jury?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision to dismiss the vehicular homicide charge and remanded the case for retrial (para 17).

Reasons

Per Minzner J. (Donnelly and Bivins JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar a retrial of the vehicular homicide charge because the mistrial resulted from a hung jury, which constitutes "manifest necessity" for a retrial. The retrial is considered a continuation of the original prosecution rather than a separate proceeding (paras 10-12).
• The Court distinguished the facts of this case from Grady v. Corbin, noting that Grady involved successive prosecutions in separate proceedings, whereas the charges in this case were brought together in a single prosecution (paras 7-10).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that his conviction for driving while intoxicated constituted an "implied acquittal" of vehicular homicide. The charges were presented as separate counts, not as greater and lesser-included offenses, and the jury's deadlock on vehicular homicide did not imply an acquittal (paras 14-16).
• The Court emphasized that retrial after a mistrial caused by a hung jury is a long-standing exception to double jeopardy protections, as it allows the prosecution one full opportunity to secure a conviction (paras 12-13).
• The Court clarified that if the Defendant is convicted of vehicular homicide on retrial, the prior conviction for driving while intoxicated must be vacated to avoid multiple punishments for the same conduct (para 17).