Brown v. Ohio
432 U.S. 161 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the state from conducting successive prosecutions and imposing cumulative punishments for a greater offense and a lesser included offense arising from the same course of conduct.
Facts:
- On November 29, 1973, Nathaniel Brown stole a 1965 Chevrolet from a parking lot in East Cleveland, Ohio.
- Nine days later, on December 8, 1973, police in Wickliffe, Ohio, found Brown driving the same stolen vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Wickliffe police charged Nathaniel Brown with joyriding for his actions on December 8, 1973.
- Brown pleaded guilty to the joyriding charge in a local court and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $100 fine.
- After his release, a Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Brown for auto theft and joyriding, both based on his actions on November 29, 1973.
- In the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (a trial court), Brown pleaded guilty to auto theft but reserved his right to challenge the charge on double jeopardy grounds.
- The trial court overruled Brown's double jeopardy objection and sentenced him to a suspended six-month jail term and probation.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction, holding the prosecutions were for two separate acts.
- The Ohio Supreme Court (the state's highest court) denied leave to appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Brown's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit the prosecution of a defendant for auto theft when that defendant has already been convicted and punished for joyriding, a lesser included offense, based on a continuous course of conduct involving the same vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars the subsequent prosecution for auto theft after a conviction for the lesser included offense of joyriding. Under the established Blockburger test, two offenses are the same if one does not require proof of a fact that the other does. Since joyriding is a lesser included offense of auto theft under Ohio law (auto theft is joyriding plus intent to permanently deprive), the greater offense is by definition the 'same' as the lesser offense for double jeopardy purposes. The state cannot avoid this constitutional protection by dividing a single, continuous criminal act—the theft and subsequent operation of the car—into separate temporal units.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Yes. The subsequent prosecution is barred, but the reversal should also be based on the principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires the prosecution in a single proceeding of all charges against a defendant that arise from a single criminal transaction. This 'single transaction' test would prevent the state from bringing charges piecemeal, regardless of how the legislature defines the offenses.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No. The second prosecution should be permitted because the Ohio Court of Appeals found that the two prosecutions were based on separate and distinct acts. The theft of the car on November 29 in East Cleveland and the operation of the car on December 8 in Wickliffe are sufficiently distinct in time and place to justify separate prosecutions. The majority gives insufficient deference to the state court's finding that these were two separate acts, not one continuous course of conduct.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the Blockburger test to greater and lesser included offenses in the context of successive prosecutions. It establishes a firm precedent that prosecutors cannot circumvent the Double Jeopardy Clause by segmenting a single criminal episode into different temporal or spatial parts to bring multiple charges. The decision reinforces the constitutional policy of finality for criminal defendants, preventing the state from repeatedly attempting to secure punishment for what is essentially the same criminal conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Ohio