104 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2008The Double Jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual “against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444, 451 , 340 S.E.2d 701, 707 (1986). 2008The Double Jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual “against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444, 451 , 340 S.E.2d 701, 707 (1986). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Ezellgreen2 sentences2013“The double jeopardy clause prohibits ... multiple convictions for the same offense.” State v. Ezell, 159 N.C. 2013“The double jeopardy clause prohibits . . . multiple convictions for the same offense.” State v. Ezell, 159 N.C. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Oglesbygreen2 sentences2022On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to arrest judgment on either Oglesby’s conviction for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon or his conviction for first-degree kidnapping to avoid a double jeopardy violation, State v. Oglesby, 174 N.C. 2022On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to arrest judgment on either Oglesby’s conviction for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon or his conviction for first-degree kidnapping to avoid a double jeopardy violation, State v. Oglesby, 174 N.C. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Freelandgreen2 sentences1986In Freeland we said: "The general rule is that the double jeopardy clause of the Federal Constitution protects an individual `"from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense."`" Freeland, 316 N.C. at 21 , 340 S.E.2d at 39 , quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 542 (1983) (emphasis ours). 1986In Freeland we said: "The general rule is that the double jeopardy clause of the Federal Constitution protects an individual `"from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense."`" Freeland, 316 N.C. at 21 , 340 S.E.2d at 39 , quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 542 (1983) (emphasis ours). | 3 | 5 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1990However, the court did apply the test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932) to determine whether the offenses are not the "same offense" within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause. 1990However, the court did apply the test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932) to determine whether the offenses are not the "same offense" within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2005“The double jeopardy clause prohibits (1) a second prosecution for the same offenses after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple convictions for the same offense.” Id. 2004See also State v. Ballard, 280 N.C. 479 , 186 S.E.2d 372 (1972). | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2020App. at 285 , 551 S.E.2d at 918 , and that the State’s appeal did not result in a double jeopardy violation because “reversal would only serve to reinstate the verdict rendered by the jury,” with “defendant [being] in no danger of re[-]prosecution [because] the appeal does not place the defendant in double jeopardy.” Id. at 286 , 551 S.E.2d at 918 (citing Wilson, 420 U.S. at 344–45, 95 S. Ct. at 1022–23, 43 L. 2020App. at 285 , 551 S.E.2d at 918 , and that the State’s appeal did not result in a double jeopardy violation because “reversal would only serve to reinstate the verdict rendered by the jury,” with “defendant [being] in no danger of re[-]prosecution [because] the appeal does not place the defendant in double jeopardy.” Id. at 286 , 551 S.E.2d at 918 (citing Wilson, 420 U.S. at 344–45, 95 S. Ct. at 1022–23, 43 L. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Tiradogreen2 sentences2014See State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 571 , 599 S.E.2d 515, 529 (2004). 2014The Supreme Court further clarified the double jeopardy analysis in State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 579 , 599 S.E.2d 515, 534 (2004), cert. denied sub nom. | 3 | 3 |
Hudson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004In Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997), the United States Supreme Court modified the standard for Double Jeopardy analysis. 2004In Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997), the United States Supreme Court modified the standard for Double Jeopardy analysis. | 2 | 4 |
North Carolina v. Pearcered2 sentences1994In the ruling relied on by Beauchamp, the Supreme Court held that this denial of credit violates the double jeopardy clause’s prohibition against “multiple punishments for the same offense,” 395 U.S. at 717 , 89 S.Ct. at 2076 , observing: [T]his basic constitutional guarantee is violated when punishment already exacted for an offense is not fully “credited” in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense. 1994In the ruling relied on by Beauchamp, the Supreme Court held that this denial of credit violates the double jeopardy clause’s prohibition against “multiple punishments for the same offense,” 395 U.S. at 717 , 89 S.Ct. at 2076 , observing: [T]his basic constitutional guarantee is violated when punishment already exacted for an offense is not fully “credited” in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences1982This test is defined in State v. Hicks, 233 N.C. 511, 516 , 64 S.E. 2d 871, 875 (1951), in opinion by Justice Ervin, as follows: ‘Whether the facts alleged in the second indictment, if given in evidence, would have sustained a conviction under the first indictment [citations], or whether the same evidence would support a conviction in each case. [Citations.]’ 280 N.C. 479, 485 , 186 S.E. 2d 372, 375 (1972). 1982This test is defined in State v. Hicks, 233 N.C. 511, 516 , 64 S.E. 2d 871, 875 (1951), in opinion by Justice Ervin, as follows: ‘Whether the facts alleged in the second indictment, if given in evidence, would have sustained a conviction under the first indictment [citations], or whether the same evidence would support a conviction in each case. [Citations.]’ 280 N.C. 479, 485 , 186 S.E. 2d 372, 375 (1972). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Olivergreen2 sentences1998See also State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202 , 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996) (holding that ten-day driver’s license revocation and $50.00 license restoration fee do not constitute punishment barring subsequent DWI prosecution under the double jeopardy clause). 1998See also State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202 , 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996) (holding that ten-day driver’s license revocation and $50.00 license restoration fee do not constitute punishment barring subsequent DWI prosecution under the double jeopardy clause). | 2 | 3 |
Missouri v. Huntergreen2 sentences1986In Freeland we said: "The general rule is that the double jeopardy clause of the Federal Constitution protects an individual `"from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense."`" Freeland, 316 N.C. at 21 , 340 S.E.2d at 39 , quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 542 (1983) (emphasis ours). 1986In Freeland we said: "The general rule is that the double jeopardy clause of the Federal Constitution protects an individual `"from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense."`" Freeland, 316 N.C. at 21 , 340 S.E.2d at 39 , quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 542 (1983) (emphasis ours). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Oglesbygreen2 sentences2022App. 658, 665 (2005), and we did not disturb that order, see 361 N.C. 550, 556 (2007). 2022App. 658, 665 (2005), and we did not disturb that order, see 361 N.C. 550, 556 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. . Mansfieldgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Mansfield, 207 N.C. 233 , 176 S.E. 761 (1934). 2016See State v. Mansfield, 207 N.C. 233 , 176 S.E. 761 (1934). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Muhammadgreen2 sentences2016Upon review, this Court recognized that " 'the key question in a double jeopardy analysis is whether the kidnapping charge is supported by evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the necessary restraint for kidnapping exposed the victim to greater danger than that inherent in the underlying felony itself.' " Id. at 457 , 617 S.E.2d at 109 (quoting State v. Muhammad, 146 N.C.App. 292 , 295, 552 S.E.2d 236 , 237 (2001) ) (brackets omitted). 2016Upon review, this Court recognized that " 'the key question in a double jeopardy analysis is whether the kidnapping charge is supported by evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the necessary restraint for kidnapping exposed the victim to greater danger than that inherent in the underlying felony itself.' " Id. at 457 , 617 S.E.2d at 109 (quoting State v. Muhammad, 146 N.C.App. 292 , 295, 552 S.E.2d 236 , 237 (2001) ) (brackets omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Roopegreen2 sentences2014Failure to do so precludes reliance on the defense on appeal.” McKenzie, 292 N.C. at 175 , 232 S.E.2d at 428 ; see also State v. Roope, 130 N.C. 2005See State v. Roope, 130 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Parthenya Whitneygreen | 2 | 2 |
| Albernaz v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tiradogreen2 sentences2014See State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 571 , 599 S.E.2d 515, 529 (2004). 2014The Supreme Court further clarified the double jeopardy analysis in State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 579 , 599 S.E.2d 515, 534 (2004), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 3 |
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranchgreen2 sentences1996In summary, the Court concluded that "[t]aken as a whole, this drug tax is a concoction of anomalies, too far-removed in crucial respects from a standard tax assessment to escape characterization as punishment for the purpose of Double Jeopardy analysis." Id. 1996Rather, the Court held that "[t]aken as a whole, [the Montana] drug tax is a concoction of anomalies, too far-removed in crucial respects from a standard tax assessment to escape characterization as punishment for the purpose of Double Jeopardy analysis." Montana Dept. of Rev. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. ___ , ___, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 1948 , 128 L.Ed.2d 767, 781 (1994). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Dowgreen2 sentences2017It is true that "where judgment must be arrested upon one of two sentences of equal severity because of a double jeopardy violation, the sentence which appears later on the docket, or is second of two counts of a single indictment, or is the second of two indictments, will be stricken." State v. Dow , 70 N.C. 2007In State v. Dow, this Court stated: "where judgment must be arrested upon one of two sentences of equal severity because of a double jeopardy violation, the sentence which appears later on the docket, or is second of two counts of a single indictment, or is the second of two indictments, will be stricken." 70 N.C.App. 82, 87 , 318 S.E.2d 883, 887 (1984)(internal citation and quotation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. McKenziegreen2 sentences2014“The procedure required in criminal trials to assert a double jeopardy defense is well established[.]” State v. McKenzie, 292 N.C. 170, 175 , 232 S.E.2d 424, 428 (1977). 2014“The procedure required in criminal trials to assert a double jeopardy defense is well established[.]” State v. McKenzie, 292 N.C. 170, 175 , 232 S.E.2d 424, 428 (1977). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Etheridgegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Brown v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Muldergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Downum v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lachatgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Richardson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Willie E. Sloangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ripleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Murrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sparksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hamrickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reidgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Newmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Madricgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hughesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Benton v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1988In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 707 (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. *616 In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1970), the United States Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel is a part of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy. 1988In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 707 (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. *616 In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1970), the United States Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel is a part of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy. | 7 | 1972–1988 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2020In rejecting the defendant’s contention that the State had no right to note an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal order and that allowing the State’s appeal would result in a double jeopardy violation, id. at 285–86, 551 S.E.2d at 918–19, the Court of Appeals began by recognizing that, “[a]t common law, the State had no right to bring an appeal” and could only be “authorized to do so by statute.” Id. at 285, 551 S.E.2d at 918 . 2020In rejecting the defendant’s contention that the State had no right to note an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal order and that allowing the State’s appeal would result in a double jeopardy violation, id. at 285–86, 551 S.E.2d at 918–19, the Court of Appeals began by recognizing that, “[a]t common law, the State had no right to bring an appeal” and could only be “authorized to do so by statute.” Id. at 285, 551 S.E.2d at 918 . | 3 | 2020–2020 |
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2020ROBINSON Newby, J., dissenting that “it is not the mere imposition of a life sentence that raises a double-jeopardy bar,” id. at 107 , 123 S. Ct. at 737 . 2020ROBINSON Newby, J., dissenting that “it is not the mere imposition of a life sentence that raises a double-jeopardy bar,” id. at 107 , 123 S. Ct. at 737 . | 3 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2020In rejecting the defendant’s contention that the State had no right to note an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal order and that allowing the State’s appeal would result in a double jeopardy violation, id. at 285–86, 551 S.E.2d at 918–19, the Court of Appeals began by recognizing that, “[a]t common law, the State had no right to bring an appeal” and could only be “authorized to do so by statute.” Id. at 285, 551 S.E.2d at 918 . 2020In rejecting the defendant’s contention that the State had no right to note an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal order and that allowing the State’s appeal would result in a double jeopardy violation, id. at 285–86, 551 S.E.2d at 918–19, the Court of Appeals began by recognizing that, “[a]t common law, the State had no right to bring an appeal” and could only be “authorized to do so by statute.” Id. at 285, 551 S.E.2d at 918 . | 3 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Rambert
green
2 sentences2013A double jeopardy claim that the defendant is being punished more than once for the same offense must demonstrate that the multiple punishments stem from “ ‘the “same offense” both in law and in fact.' ” Id. (quoting State v. Lewis, 32 N.C. 2008This same argument, however, was rejected in State v. Rambert, 341 N.C. 173 , 459 S.E.2d 510 , in which our Supreme Court was presented with a double jeopardy challenge to multiple indictments under section 14-34.1. | 3 | 2008–2019 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2021In compliance with this Court’s mandate, on remand the trial court consequently arrested judgment on Defendant’s attempted robbery conviction (based on the double jeopardy violation). ¶8 On 9 April 2013, Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (“MAR”) in Forsyth County Superior Court based on the newly-issued United States Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held that a juvenile offender may not be sentenced to mandatory LWOP. 2021In compliance with this Court’s mandate, on remand the trial court consequently arrested judgment on Defendant’s attempted robbery conviction (based on the double jeopardy violation). ¶8 On 9 April 2013, Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (“MAR”) in Forsyth County Superior Court based on the newly-issued United States Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held that a juvenile offender may not be sentenced to mandatory LWOP. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. RAHAMAN
green
2 sentences2014App. 45, 47 , 641 S.E.2d 339, 341 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Rahaman, 202 N.C. 2014Once jeopardy has attached, defendant is “protect[ed] against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense." State v. Rahaman, 202 N.C. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences2013Stat. § 20-16.5 requiring a thirty-day revocation constituted a double jeopardy violation. 145 N.C. 2013App. at 325 , 550 S.E.2d at 855 . | 2 | 2005–2013 |
Grady v. Corbin
red
2 sentences2012In that footnote, the plurality addressed a concern by the dissenting opinion that the plurality’s overruling of the “same conduct” Double Jeopardy test established by Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 109 L. 2012In that footnote, the plurality addressed a concern by the dissenting opinion that the plurality’s overruling of the “same conduct” Double Jeopardy test established by Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 109 L. | 2 | 1992–2012 |
| Oregon v. Kennedy green | 2 | 1987–1987 |
| Illinois v. Vitale green | 2 | 1984–1986 |
| Illinois v. Somerville green | 2 | 1981–1985 |
| State v. Campbell green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Simpson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Tyson. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Artis green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Jacobs green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Strickland neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Hice neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Ripley green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Wilson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Shank v. Virginia green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Hammond v. Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Mintz neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Newman neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Hughes green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Menna v. New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Petty green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Massey green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Vardiman green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.