104.7Double Jeopardy

I. Jurisdiction

If jurisdiction depends upon a valid indictment, jeopardy also requires a valid indictment. If the criminal pleading was invalid, retrial is not barred by a prior conviction or mistrial/dismissal. Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 469 (1973); State v. Pakulski, 326 N.C. 434, 439 (1990). But a defendant acquitted upon an invalid pleading may not be retried. Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (1896); Jeff Welty, Pleading Defects and Double Jeopardy, North Carolina Criminal Law Blog (Sept 10, 2015).

II. Eligible Proceedings

Criminal Proceedings

“[J]eopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with a criminal prosecution.” Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975). Despite the language of the Fifth Amendment (i.e., “life or limb”), the protection extends to offenses punishable by fine or imprisonment, including misdemeanors. Dep’t of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 769 n.1 (1994); Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163, 173 (1873). The only criminal prosecutions that might not implicate double jeopardy are summary proceedings for direct criminal contempt. See Rudstein, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, at 44-45; United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993).

Civil Proceedings

Juvenile delinquency adjudications, ostensibly civil, are deemed criminal for purposes of double jeopardy. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 531 (1975); Matter of Vinson, 298 N.C. 640, 650 (1979). Otherwise, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply in civil actions, United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 450 (1989), or to civil sanctions. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997). Consequently, subsequent criminal prosecution based on the same conduct is not barred by the prior imposition of civil penalties in the following scenarios:

• Imposition of civil liability for larceny, shoplifting, etc. G.S. 1-538.2. State v. Beckham, 148 N.C. App. 282, 288-89 (2002).

• Thirty-day pretrial driving license revocation. G.S. 20-16.5; State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 210 (1996); State v. Hinchman, 192 N.C. App. 657, 666 (2008).

• One-year commercial driver’s license disqualification. G.S. 20-17.4; State v. Reid, 148 N.C. App. 548, 554 (2002).

• Pretrial detention of defendants charged with crimes of domestic violence. G.S. 15A-534.1(b); State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483, 496 (1998).

• Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission administrative action. G.S. 18B-302; State v. Wilson, 127 N.C. App. 129 (1997).

• Assessment of drug tax by N.C. Department of Revenue. G.S. 105-113.107; State v. Adams, 132 N.C. App. 819 (1999).

• Monetary penalties, occupational debarment for violating federal banking statutes. 12 U.S.C. §§ 84(a)(1) & 375(b); Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 103 (1997).

Revocation Proceedings.

Proceedings to revoke probation, parole, or supervised release are not criminal prosecutions. Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700-01 (2000) (supervised release); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972) (parole). Incarceration of a defendant upon revocation of probation, parole, or supervised release is said to stem from the original judgment. State v. Murchison, 367 N.C. 461, 463 (2014); In re O’Neal, 160 N.C. App. 409, 413 (2003). Hence, there is no double jeopardy bar to prosecuting a defendant subsequently for the same conduct that gave rise to the revocation. State v. Sparks, 362 N.C. 181, 189-90 (2008); State v. Monk, 132 N.C. App. 248, 253 (1999).