Illinois v. Vitale

Supreme Court of United States
447 U.S. 410 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if the offense for which the defendant was previously convicted is either a necessary element of the greater offense charged in the second prosecution, or if the government's case for the greater offense will rely on proving the conduct that constituted the lesser offense.

Facts:

On November 24, 1974, a vehicle driven by John Vitale, a juvenile, struck two small children.
A police officer at the scene issued Vitale a traffic citation for failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident in violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
One of the children died almost immediately after the collision.
The second child died the following day.

Procedural Posture:

John Vitale was tried without a jury in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, for the traffic offense of failing to reduce speed.
The trial court convicted Vitale and sentenced him to pay a $15 fine.
The following day, the state filed a petition in the juvenile division of the same court, charging Vitale with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
Vitale moved to dismiss the manslaughter charges on double jeopardy grounds.
The juvenile court dismissed the manslaughter petition, holding it was barred by Illinois's compulsory joinder statutes.
The State of Illinois appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, which affirmed the dismissal on state statutory grounds.
The State of Illinois then appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the dismissal, but on federal constitutional grounds, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the prosecution because failing to reduce speed was a lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
The State of Illinois petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

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 automatically bar a state from prosecuting a defendant for involuntary manslaughter following a conviction for failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident, where both charges arise from the same event?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice White

No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not automatically bar the second prosecution; it only bars the manslaughter prosecution if, under state law, a careless failure to slow is always a necessary element of manslaughter by automobile, or if the state in its prosecution will rely on and prove that specific conduct to establish the recklessness element of manslaughter. The court applied the Blockburger test, which asks if each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not. Here, it is unclear whether, under Illinois law, manslaughter by automobile always requires proof of a failure to reduce speed. If it does not, the offenses are not the 'same' under a strict statutory comparison. However, building on Harris v. Oklahoma, the court held that even if the offenses are not identical on paper, a second prosecution is barred if the state finds it necessary to prove the conduct for which the defendant has already been convicted (failure to slow) to establish an essential element (recklessness) of the more serious crime. Because the state's theory of prosecution was unknown, the court remanded the case for this determination.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stevens

Yes. The manslaughter prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The dissent argued for affirmance on two grounds. First, the U.S. Supreme Court should defer to the Illinois Supreme Court's determination that failing to reduce speed is, as a matter of state law, a lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. Second, even if it were not always a lesser-included offense, the prosecution is barred on the specific facts of this case. The State had five years to articulate a theory of recklessness independent of Vitale's failure to reduce speed and failed to do so. Forcing a defendant to stand trial again under these circumstances violates the core protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which is to prevent the ordeal of a second trial for the same conduct.

Analysis:

This decision refines the Double Jeopardy analysis by moving beyond a purely abstract comparison of statutory elements as required by the Blockburger test. It establishes that courts must also consider the actual conduct the prosecution will seek to prove in the second trial. By holding that a prosecution is barred if the state must re-prove the conduct underlying a prior conviction to establish an element of a greater offense, the court provides broader protection against successive prosecutions. This approach, sometimes called the 'actual evidence' or 'conduct' test, prevents the state from strategically dividing a single course of conduct into multiple, separate prosecutions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Illinois v. Vitale (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature