dual sovereignty doctrine in Ohio

2024Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.” State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221 , 223–24 (1971), quoting Moore v. People of State of Illinois, 55 U.S. 13, 20, 14 (1852). {¶24} We upheld the dual sovereignty doctrine in State v. Fleischer, 2023-Ohio- 3597 (7th Dist.).

2023Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.” State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221 , 223–24, 271 N.E.2d 567 (1971), quoting Moore v. People of State of Illinois, 55 U.S. 13, 20 , 14 L.Ed. 306 (1852). {¶13} We also recognize that in Ohio the dual sovereignty doctrine continues to be valid law.

2017Delaware County, Case No. 16 CAA 07 0030 10 be read as the U.S. Attorney agreeing not to bring criminal charges against appellant for his state acts under the dual sovereignty doctrine: "[A] defendant may be subjected to successive trials at both the state and federal levels for the same act or offense." State v. McKinney, 80 Ohio App.3d 470, 473 , 609 N.E.2d 613 (2d Dist.1992).

2017Delaware County, Case No. 16 CAA 07 0030 10 be read as the U.S. Attorney agreeing not to bring criminal charges against appellant for his state acts under the dual sovereignty doctrine: "[A] defendant may be subjected to successive trials at both the state and federal levels for the same act or offense." State v. McKinney, 80 Ohio App.3d 470, 473 , 609 N.E.2d 613 (2d Dist.1992).

2013United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141 , 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has applied the dual sovereignty doctrine relative to federal and state prosecutions of the same criminal conduct, stating: [W]e are of the opinion that the power of a state to prosecute under state law for the same act a defendant who has already been prosecuted under federal law satisfies a legitimate state interest in preserving “the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines.” State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221, 226-227 , 271 N.E.

2013United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141 , 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has applied the dual sovereignty doctrine relative to federal and state prosecutions of the same criminal conduct, stating: [W]e are of the opinion that the power of a state to prosecute under state law for the same act a defendant who has already been prosecuted under federal law satisfies a legitimate state interest in preserving “the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines.” State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221, 226-227 , 271 N.E.

2013United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141 , 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has applied the dual sovereignty doctrine relative to federal and state prosecutions of the same criminal conduct, stating: [W]e are of the opinion that the power of a state to prosecute under state law for the same act a defendant who has already been prosecuted under federal law satisfies a legitimate state interest in preserving “the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines.” State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221, 226-227 , 271 N.E.

2013United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 , 43 S.Ct. 141 , 67 L.Ed. 314 (1922). {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has applied the dual sovereignty doctrine relative to federal and state prosecutions of the same criminal conduct, stating: [W]e are of the opinion that the power of a state to prosecute under state law for the same act a defendant who has already been prosecuted under federal law satisfies a legitimate state interest in preserving “the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines.” State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221, 226-227 , 271 N.E.

2023Carroll No. 19 CA 0938, 2020-Ohio-3358, ¶ 27 . {¶18} The state first raised the dual sovereignty doctrine in its April 29, 2022 response to Appellant's motion to dismiss.

2019Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S.___, 139 S.Ct. 1960 , 204 L.Ed.2d 322 (2019).

2019Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S.___, 139 S.Ct. 1960 , 204 L.Ed.2d 322 (2019).

2005We further held that "[c]ollateral estoppel, which requires mutuality of parties, is likewise inapplicable because the state of Ohio was not a party to the federal prosecution." Whiteside, citing State v. Brown (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 321 , 322-323 .

2000State v. Fletcher (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 221 , 227 , cetiorari denied (1972), 404 U.S. 1024 , 92 S.Ct. 699 , 30 L.Ed.2d 675 .

2000State v. Fletcher (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 221 , 227 , cetiorari denied (1972), 404 U.S. 1024 , 92 S.Ct. 699 , 30 L.Ed.2d 675 .

2000State v. Fletcher (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 221 , 227 , cetiorari denied (1972), 404 U.S. 1024 , 92 S.Ct. 699 , 30 L.Ed.2d 675 .

1992When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences [sic ].’ ” Id. at 88, 106 S.Ct. at 437 , 88 L.Ed.2d at 394 , citing United States v. Lanza, supra, 260 U.S. at 382 , 43 S.Ct. at 142-143 , 67 L.Ed. at 317 .

1992When a defendant in a single act violates the ‘peace and dignity’ of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences [sic ].’ ” Id. at 88, 106 S.Ct. at 437 , 88 L.Ed.2d at 394 , citing United States v. Lanza, supra, 260 U.S. at 382 , 43 S.Ct. at 142-143 , 67 L.Ed. at 317 .

1992The court further stated that although the United States Supreme Court had not *474 previously considered the applicability of the dual sovereignty doctrine to successive prosecutions by different states, it reasoned that “ ‘[i]f, for double jeopardy purposes, Alabama is considered to be a sovereign entity vis-á-vis the federal government then surely it is a sovereign entity vis-a-vis the State of Georgia.’ ” Id.

1971Waller v. Florida (1970), 397 U. S. 387 , is somewhat instructive on this question.