111 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zawodniak v. Stategreen2 sentences2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen 2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen | 5 | 8 |
Rowbottom v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144 , 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000); but see Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33 , 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000) (holding that a double-jeopardy claim was a fundamental right that an appellant could raise for the first time in Rule 37 proceedings). 2015See State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144 , 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000); but see Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33 , 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000) (holding that a double-jeopardy claim was a fundamental right that an appellant could raise for the first time in Rule 37 proceedings). | 3 | 8 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Samontry v. State, 2012 Ark. 105, at 5 , 387 S.W.3d 178, 182 (involving an interlocutory appeal from 6 an order of the circuit court disqualifying counsel); Williams v. State, 371 Ark. 550, 558 , 268 S.W.3d 868, 874 (2007) (involving an interlocutory appeal from an order rejecting a double- jeopardy defense); Hamilton v. State, 320 Ark. 346 , 896 S.W.2d 877 (1995) (holding that an appeal from an order granting or denying the transfer of a case from one court to another having jurisdiction over juvenile matters must be considered by way of interlocutory appeal). 2022See Samontry v. State, 2012 Ark. 105, at 5 , 387 S.W.3d 178, 182 (involving an interlocutory appeal from 6 an order of the circuit court disqualifying counsel); Williams v. State, 371 Ark. 550, 558 , 268 S.W.3d 868, 874 (2007) (involving an interlocutory appeal from an order rejecting a double- jeopardy defense); Hamilton v. State, 320 Ark. 346 , 896 S.W.2d 877 (1995) (holding that an appeal from an order granting or denying the transfer of a case from one court to another having jurisdiction over juvenile matters must be considered by way of interlocutory appeal). | 2 | 4 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Citing Johnson v. State , 298 Ark. 479 , 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989), we held that Early's claim of a double jeopardy violation as presented does not "raise a question of jurisdiction for purposes of habeas corpus relief." Early , 2008 WL 2310967 , at *2. 2018Citing Johnson v. State , 298 Ark. 479 , 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989), we held that Early's claim of a double jeopardy violation as presented does not "raise a question of jurisdiction for purposes of habeas corpus relief." Early , 2008 WL 2310967 , at *2. | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Dixongreen2 sentences2002In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), the Court overruled Grady and held that the Blockburger test was the only one to be applied. 2001See United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993). | 2 | 3 |
Arizona v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025Moreover, this statement comports with the federal standard of “manifest necessity” as articulated in Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505 (1978): [I]n view of the importance of the [defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal], and the fact that it is frustrated by any mistrial, the prosecutor must shoulder the burden of justifying the mistrial if he is to avoid the double jeopardy bar. 1999Moreover, this statement comports with the federal standard of “manifest necessity” as articulated in Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505 (1978): [I]n view of the importance of the [defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal], and the fact that it is frustrated by any mistrial, the prosecutor must shoulder the burden of justifying the mistrial if he is to avoid the double jeopardy bar. | 2 | 2 |
| Diaz v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Nard v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Burgie v. Hobbsgreen2 sentences2015See id.; see also Burgie v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 360 (per curiam). 2014Burgie v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 360 (per curiam). | 1 | 6 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences2002In Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), the Supreme Court held that, in addition to passing the Blockburger test, a subsequent prosecution must satisfy a “same-conduct” test to avoid the double jeopardy bar. 2001In Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), the Supreme Court held that in addition to passing the Blockburger test, a subsequent prosecution must satisfy a “same-conduct” test to avoid the double jeopardy bar. | 1 | 4 |
Wilcox v. Stategreen2 sentences2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen 2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen | 1 | 2 |
State v. Montaguegreen2 sentences2024Our supreme court in State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144 , 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000), held that an alleged double-jeopardy violation on direct appeal, similar to the one Mongomery is claiming here, is not treated as an illegal sentence. 2024Our supreme court in State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144 , 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000), held that an alleged double-jeopardy violation on direct appeal, similar to the one Mongomery is claiming here, is not treated as an illegal sentence. | 1 | 2 |
Brenk v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 584 , 847 S.W.2d 1, 4 (1993). 2020Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 584 , 847 S.W.2d 1, 4 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2019App. 443, 447 , 220 S.W.3d 248, 250 (2005), this court held that “when section 16-90-120 is used to enhance a defendant’s sentence, the double-jeopardy clause is not offended.” See also Campbell v. State, 2017 Ark. 2009This court interpreted the supreme court’s decision in Williams v. State, 364 Ark. 203 , 217 S.W.3d 817 (2005), to mean that when the commission-of-a-felony-with-a-firearm charge is used to enhance a defendant’s sentence, the double jeopardy clause is not offended. 93 Ark.App. at 447 , 220 S.W.3d at 250 . | 1 | 2 |
Rea v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Rea v. State, 2015 Ark. 431, at 3 , 474 S.W.3d 493, 496 (explaining that the purpose of the double-jeopardy clause is to protect a defendant from multiple punishments for the same offense). 2017See Rea v. State, 2015 Ark. 431, at 3 , 474 S.W.3d 493, 496 (explaining that the purpose of the double-jeopardy clause is to protect a defendant from multiple punishments for the same offense). | 1 | 2 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 455 (per curiam) (citing Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33 , 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000)). 8 Cite as 2014 Ark. 116 According to the trial record, the jury found appellant guilty of committing rape against the victim on three separate occasions. 2013While a double-jeopardy claim is a fundamental claim that can be raised for the first time in a Rule 37.1 proceeding, Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33 , 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000), 8 Cite as 2013 Ark. 455 appellant failed to make any argument as to how he was tried for the same offense twice. | 1 | 2 |
| Lockhart v. Nelsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| Samontry v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Simpsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hughes v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Small v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sims v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Elmore v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rickenbacker v. Norrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gagnon v. Scarpellired | 1 | 1 |
| Dodge v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rogangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sherman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anderson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rowbottom v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144 , 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000); but see Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33 , 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000) (holding that a double-jeopardy claim was a fundamental right that an appellant could raise for the first time in Rule 37 proceedings). 2015See State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144 , 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000); but see Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33 , 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000) (holding that a double-jeopardy claim was a fundamental right that an appellant could raise for the first time in Rule 37 proceedings). | 1 | 8 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burks v. United States
green
2 sentences2000However, the double jeopardy clause “imposes no limitation whatever upon the power to retry a defendant who has succeeded in getting his first conviction set aside.” Id. at 131 (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, supra) (emphasis original). 1996We consider this argument first because the double-jeopardy clause, as interpreted in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), precludes a second trial when a judgment of conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence. | 11 | 1983–2000 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2014In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that the double-jeopardy bar applies in the multiple-punishment context if the two offenses for which the defendant is punished cannot survive the “same elements” test. 2005This case is affirmed as to the terroristic threatening conviction and reversed and remanded on the first-degree battery by means of a firearm conviction. 1 In Cothren v. State, 344 Ark. 697, 705 , 42 S.W.3d 543 (2001), this court stated: In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy bar applies in the multiple punishment context where the two offenses for which the defendant is punished cannot survive the “same-elements” test. | 6 | 1993–2014 |
United States v. Dinitz
green
2 sentences2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen 1997We discussed the Dinitz decision and others in Timmons v. State, supra, which involved an improper closing argument by the prosecutor, and concluded: Looking to the holdings of United States v. Jorn, supra, and United States v. Dinitz, supra, and to the cases following the fundamental proposition of Ball v. United States, supra, we do not feel compelled to extend the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Martin, supra, so as to apply the double jeopardy bar in a case where the appellant’s conviction has been overturned on appeal as opposed to mistrial before conviction o | 4 | 1986–2025 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2024In Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308 , 65 S.W.3d 394 (2001), the supreme court 7 held that to preserve a double-jeopardy claim, the appellant must object after the jury returns the convictions. 2024In Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 308 , 65 S.W.3d 394 (2001), the supreme court 7 held that to preserve a double-jeopardy claim, the appellant must object after the jury returns the convictions. | 4 | 2017–2024 |
Helvering v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1993It has been held that the risk to which the double jeopardy clause refers is not present in proceedings that are not “essentially criminal.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938). 1992It has been held that the risk to which the double jeopardy clause refers is not present in proceedings that are not “essentially criminal.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938); see also Farris v. State, 303 Ark. 541 , 798 S.W.2d 103 (1990). | 4 | 1990–2002 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences1996Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579 , 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993); Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247 , 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984). 1996Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579 , 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993); Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247 , 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984). | 4 | 1992–1996 |
Oregon v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen 2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen | 3 | 2017–2025 |
United States v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2004Fletcher v. State, 318 Ark. 298 , 884 S.W.2d 623 (1994) (citing United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975)). 1994United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975). | 3 | 1990–2004 |
Lukach v. State
green
2 sentences1993Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 119 , 835 S.W.2d 852 (1992). 1993Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 119 , 835 S.W.2d 852 (1992). | 3 | 1992–1993 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen 2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen | 2 | 2020–2025 |
Winkle v. State
green
2 sentences2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen 2025A double-jeopardy claim may be raised by interlocutory appeal because if a defendant is illegally tried a second time, the right is forfeited.4 We review a circuit court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds de novo.5 When the analysis presents itself as a mixed question of law and fact, we give the factual determinations made by the circuit court due deference and will not reverse them unless clearly erroneous.6 However, “the ultimate decision by the circuit court that the defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated is reviewed de novo, with no deferen | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Billings v. State
green
2 sentences2023If so, we note that Skaggs was not placed in jeopardy for a second time by the revocation proceeding or by the imposition of additional periods of incarceration for his original convictions, see Billings v. State, 53 Ark. 2023If so, we note that Skaggs was not placed in jeopardy for a second time by the revocation proceeding or by the imposition of additional periods of incarceration for his original convictions, see Billings v. State, 53 Ark. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2022McFerrin brings this pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he contends evidence was withheld in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); there was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction and sentence; and he was subject to a double-jeopardy violation. 2017Travis frames his proposed eoram nobis claims in his second petition as allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). | 2 | 2017–2022 |
People v. Echavarria
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2017Id. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Cothren v. State
green
2 sentences2005This case is affirmed as to the terroristic threatening conviction and reversed and remanded on the first-degree battery by means of a firearm conviction. 1 In Cothren v. State, 344 Ark. 697, 705 , 42 S.W.3d 543 (2001), this court stated: In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy bar applies in the multiple punishment context where the two offenses for which the defendant is punished cannot survive the “same-elements” test. 2005This case is affirmed as to the terroristic threatening conviction and reversed and remanded on the first-degree battery by means of a firearm conviction. 1 In Cothren v. State, 344 Ark. 697, 705 , 42 S.W.3d 543 (2001), this court stated: In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy bar applies in the multiple punishment context where the two offenses for which the defendant is punished cannot survive the “same-elements” test. | 2 | 2005–2012 |
Timmons v. State
green
2 sentences2002Timmons v. State, 290 Ark. 121 , 717 S.W.2d 208 (1986). 2002Timmons v. State, 290 Ark. 121 , 717 S.W.2d 208 (1986). | 2 | 1997–2002 |
| Roleson v. State green | 2 | 1983–1997 |
| Pollard v. State green | 2 | 1983–1997 |
| Greene v. Massey green | 2 | 1983–1997 |
| Roleson v. State green | 2 | 1983–1997 |
| Jones v. State green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| King v. State green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Shanteria Montgomery v. State of Arkansas green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Avery v. Ward green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Jackson v. State neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lee v. State green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Owen Watson v. State of Arkansas neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| McClendon v. State neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Brian Taylor v. State of Arkansas green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Blueford v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Hamilton v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| J.Williams v. Kelley green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hale v. State green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Edward Cave v. State of Arkansas neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Edwards v. Kelley green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Campbell v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Brewer v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hoey v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| L. Wilson v. State neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.