Skip to content
Name: People v. Juarez
Case #: S219889
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/17/2016

A complaint charges the "same offense" within the meaning of Penal Code 1387 if, as pleaded, either the new felony charge or a previously dismissed felony charge is necessarily included in the other charge. The defendants were charged with two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187) and assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)). In July 2012, the prosecution successfully moved to dismiss that information and refiled the case the same day. When the case came to trial, the prosecution was unprepared to proceed, and the case was dismissed. The prosecution filed a third case,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bell
Case #: F064909
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/15/2015

Plea of former jeopardy based on prosecutorial goading must be tried to a jury unless the facts are uncontested and there is only one reasonable inference to draw from them. A group of gang members robbed a casino using assault weapons. One of their girlfriends informed the police, who began monitoring the gang and discovered that they were planning to rob the casino again. A SWAT team intercepted the gang en route. At their trial for various offenses, a prosecution witness violated an in limine ruling and the trial court granted a defense motion for a mistrial. After the mistrial,…

View Full Summary
Name: Brown v. Superior Court
Case #: B221980
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/31/2010

Generally, a defendant bears the burden of establishing a defense of double jeopardy. But, in the unique circumstance where the prosecution's strategic charging decisions and trial theory are inconsistent with the specificity of the evidence presented at trial, then the prosecution has the burden of proving the charges to be retried involved different offenses than those involved in the jury's convictions or acquittals. This case involved the issue-preclusion aspect of double jeopardy. Petitioner was charged with committing 23 sex offenses spanning months against two minors. At trial, the court dismissed two counts. The jury convicted of a…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Ziskin
Case #: 02-50443
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/15/2003
Subsequent History: None

Because the defendant had participated in two distinct conspiracies, the second conspiracy indictment did not violate the guarantee against double jeopardy. The defendant had been charged in two separate proceedings, each charging him with conspiracy to import ecstasy and conspiracy to possess ecstasy for sale. As to the second proceeding, he entered a plea of once in jeopardy. While acknowledging that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the government from splitting a single conspiracy into separate charges and bringing successive prosecutions against a defendant, the court applied the five-part test from Arnold v. United States (9th Cir. 1964) 336…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Alas
Case #: A092852
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/17/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 10/2/02. Depublished. See S109356

The standard of review of the trial court’s removal of a juror during deliberations is a heightened abuse of discretion standard. The juror misconduct must appear as a "demonstrable reality." The trial court gave six reasons for dismissing a juror, concluding he was refusing to deliberate and refusing to follow instructions. However, the evidence supporting these reasons could just as easily be viewed as "the reactions of juror for whom English was a second language, who was palpably under considerable stress as a result of sitting as a finder of fact in a murder trial,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sotello
Case #: F035027
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/07/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 3/20/02.

Appellant was charged with a strike at a time when the strikes statute required personal use of a firearm . There was insufficient proof of personal use of a firearm when the prosecutor merely proved appellant was convicted of assault with a firearm in 1994. However, the proper remedy was remand to the trial court to permit the prosecution to present new evidence on the issue. Retrial was not barred by double jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel, law of the case, or considerations of fundamental…

View Full Summary