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 led law enforcement officers on a high-speed car chase after being stopped at a checkpoint and showing signs of intoxication. During the pursuit, the Defendant drove erratically, ignored commands to stop, and attempted to run over a deputy with her vehicle. She was eventually stopped and resisted arrest (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 1993: The court dismissed the aggravated assault charge against the Defendant on double-jeopardy grounds after she pled no contest to six related misdemeanor charges, including resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (paras 7-8).

Parties' Submissions

• State (Appellant): Argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the aggravated assault charge on double-jeopardy grounds, citing Ohio v. Johnson, which allows prosecution of a greater offense even after a plea to a lesser included offense in the same proceeding (paras 9-12).
• Defendant (Appellee): Contended that double jeopardy barred the aggravated assault charge after her plea to the lesser offense. She also argued that the State failed to preserve the issue of Ohio v. Johnson at trial and that reprosecution on remand would violate double jeopardy (paras 13, 17, 34).

Legal Issues

• Did the trial court err in dismissing the aggravated assault charge on double-jeopardy grounds before a determination of guilt or innocence was made?
• Can the State raise the Ohio v. Johnson issue for the first time on appeal under the doctrine of fundamental error?
• Does double jeopardy bar the Defendant's retrial on the aggravated assault charge?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the aggravated assault charge and remanded the case for retrial (para 38).

Reasons

Per Bivins J. (Hartz J. concurring, Pickard J. dissenting):

• Ohio v. Johnson: The Court held that under Ohio v. Johnson, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar prosecution of a greater offense in the same proceeding after a plea to a lesser included offense. The trial court erred in dismissing the aggravated assault charge before a determination of guilt or innocence was made (paras 12-16).
• Fundamental Error: The Court found that the State's failure to raise the Ohio v. Johnson issue at trial constituted fundamental error. The dismissal of the aggravated assault charge deprived the State of its right to prosecute a serious offense, resulting in a miscarriage of justice (paras 17-32).
• Reprosecution on Remand: The Court concluded that double jeopardy does not bar retrial because the dismissal was at the Defendant's request and did not amount to an adjudication of guilt or innocence. The Defendant forfeited her right to have the trial completed by the first tribunal (paras 34-36).

Special Concurrence by Hartz J.:

• Hartz J. agreed with the majority but emphasized that the trial court's mid-trial ruling on the double-jeopardy motion was procedurally improper. He suggested that such motions should be resolved post-verdict to avoid disrupting the trial process (paras 40-58).

Dissent by Pickard J.:

• Pickard J. disagreed with extending the doctrine of fundamental error to the State, arguing that it undermines the adversarial process and the trial court's authority. He also contended that the State's interest in prosecuting the aggravated assault charge did not rise to the level of fundamental error, as the Defendant had already pled to six related misdemeanors (paras 59-71).