433 U.S. 682 (1977)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Oklahoma

U.S. Supreme Court

Jun 29, 1977

433 U.S. 682 (1977)

Summary

holding that, for double jeopardy purposes, robbery with a firearm is the same offense as felony murder predicated on armed robbery

Summary of this case from Lemke v. Ryan

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 76-5663

6-29-1977

Thomas Leon HARRIS v. State of OKLAHOMA

PER CURIAM.

A cleark in a Tulsa, Okla., grocery store was shot and killed by a companion of petitioner in the course of a robbery of the store by the two men. Petitioner was convicted of felony-murder in Oklahoma State court. The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case states that ‘[i]n a felony murder case, the proof of underlying felony [here robbery with firearms] is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction.‘ 555 P.2d 76, 80-81 (1976). Petitioner nevertheless was thereafter brought to trial and convicted on a seperate information charging the robbery with firearms, after denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that this prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he had been already convicted of the offense in the felony-murder trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

1,2º When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.* In re *683 Neilsen, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 LEd. 118 (1889); cf. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). ‘[ ] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, .... cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.‘ In re Nielsen, supra,131 U.S., at 188, 9 S.Ct. at 676. See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970); Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333, 352, 27 S.Ct. 749, 754, 51 L.Ed. 1084 (1907).

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is

Reversed.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice MARSHALL joins, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion but in any event would reverse on a ground not addressed by the Court, namely, that the State did not prosecute the two informations in one proceeding. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of ‘all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurence, episode, or transaction. ‘ Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453-454, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1199, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U.S. 1053, 97 S.Ct. 768, 50 L.Ed.2d 770 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and cases collected therin.

Summaries of

Harris v. Oklahoma

U.S. Supreme Court

Jun 29, 1977

433 U.S. 682 (1977)

holding that, for double jeopardy purposes, robbery with a firearm is the same offense as felony murder predicated on armed robbery

Summary of this case from Lemke v. Ryan

holding that defendant's conviction for felony murder based on a killing in the course of an armed robbery barred a subsequent prosecution against the same defendant for the robbery

Summary of this case from Delgado v. Department of Corrections

holding that appellant, who had been tried and convicted of felony murder, could not be subsequently tried under a separate indictment for the predicate felony

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Jose

holding that a defendant could not be tried for felony murder once convicted of the lesser included offense of robbery

Summary of this case from U.S. v. 9844 South Titan Court, Unit 9

holding that when one defendant was convicted of felony murder based on his codefendant's killing of a victim during the course of an armed robbery, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment barred a separate prosecution of the defendant for the lesser crime of armed robbery

Summary of this case from Selsor v. Kaiser

holding that when conviction of a crime cannot be had without conviction of a requisite underlying felony, violation of the underlying felony cannot justify an additional sentence

Summary of this case from Barnes v. Schriro

holding double jeopardy violated by convictions for felony murder and underlying crime

Summary of this case from Pers. Restraint of Orange

holding Double Jeopardy Clause prevents prosecution for underlying felony after conviction of felony murder

Summary of this case from Cook v. State

holding the defendant's conviction for felony murder based on a killing in the course of an armed robbery barred a subsequent prosecution against the same defendant for the armed robbery

Summary of this case from People v. Skaggs

holding that, for double jeopardy purposes, the crime generally described as felony murder is not a separate offense distinct from its various elements, including the underlying felony

Summary of this case from Hudgins v. Commonwealth

finding a double jeopardy violation based on successive convictions for both felony-murder and its lesser-included offense of robbery with a firearm

Summary of this case from Wallace v. Lockhart

finding robbery a lesser-included offense when felony murder conviction required proof of robbery

Summary of this case from Bryant v. State

In Harris, however, we held that "[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one."

Summary of this case from United States v. Dixon

In Harris, we held that a conviction for felony murder based on a killing in the course of an armed robbery foreclosed a subsequent prosecution for robbery with a firearm.

Summary of this case from United States v. Dixon

In Harris, the defendant was first convicted of felony murder after his companion shot a grocery store clerk in the course of a robbery.

Summary of this case from Grady v. Corbin

In Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, we held that a conviction on a felony-murder charge barred a subsequent prosecution for robbery, where the robbery had been used to establish the requisite intent on the murder charge.

Summary of this case from Illinois v. Vitale

In Harris, we held, without dissent, that a defendant's conviction for felony murder based on a killing in the course of an armed robbery barred a subsequent prosecution against the same defendant for the robbery.

Summary of this case from Illinois v. Vitale

noting that the Double Jeopardy Clause treats offenses as one "[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime ... cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime"

Summary of this case from United States v. Palacios

In Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977), the petitioner was first convicted of felony murder after shooting a store clerk during a robbery, and later convicted on the separate charge of robbery with firearms based upon the same incident.

Summary of this case from Austin v. Cain

In Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977) (per curiam), the petitioner and his accomplice had robbed a grocery store, and in the course of the robbery the accomplice shot and killed a store clerk.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hatchett

In Harris, the government had to prove that the defendant had committed a felony in order to prove him liable for felony murder.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hatchett

In Harris, we held that a conviction for felony murder based on a killing in the course of an armed robbery foreclosed a subsequent prosecution for robbery with a firearm.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Hatchett

In Harris, the Court barred a second prosecution for the offense that had been used to establish an element of the felony murder offense for which the defendant was convicted.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Colon-Osorio

In Harris, the defendant was prosecuted first for robbery and subsequently for felony murder based on a homicide that occurred during the course of the same robbery. The Supreme Court recognized that the second prosecution would not be barred under Blockburger because, on the faces of the relevant statutes, the essential elements of the crimes were different. The Court held, however, that the defendant's second prosecution constituted double jeopardy because the felony murder prosecution would necessarily require the defendant to defend against the robbery charge for which he had already been prosecuted.

Summary of this case from Ladner v. Smith

Barring felony murder and robbery with a firearm prosecution stemming from the same grocery store robbery

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Gonzalez

Harris v. Oklahoma

Summary

Opinion

Harris v. Oklahoma

Harris v. Oklahoma

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Harris v. Oklahoma

Summary

Opinion

Harris v. Oklahoma

Harris v. Oklahoma

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citations

Citing Cases

Citations