![]() The rule is considered to have its origin in the controversy between Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Becket in 12th century. It is a centuries old principle, and it has been rightly observed that the history of double jeopardy is the history of criminal procedure. There is no unanimity of opinions regarding the origin of double jeopardy principle since it obscure in the mists of time. ![]() The defence of double jeopardy also prevents the state from retrying a person for the same crime after he has been acquitted. Thus, one cannot be tried for both murder and culpable homicide for the same killing but can be tried for both murder and robbery if the murder arose out of the robbery. Nor can one be tried for two different offences based upon the same conduct unless the two are offences defined so as to prohibit conduct of significantly different kinds. If a person robs a financial institution, that individual cannot twice be tried for robbery for the same offense. In general, in countries observing the rule of double jeopardy, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence based on the same conduct. Tagged Anthony Maldonado Court of Criminal Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas court of criminal appeals of texas case summaries maldonado v.Double jeopardy, in law, protection against the use by the state of certain multiple forms of prosecution. In completing the analyses, Justice Keller determined that indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault are the same under an elements scheme but different under a units analysis based on the “iscrete acts that occur on separate days,” invalidating a double jeopardy claim. Justice Keller determined that in order for a double jeopardy violation to occur, the offenses must be considered the same offense under both an elements and units analysis. ![]() Justice Keller examined an “elements” and “units” analysis of double jeopardy. PRESIDING JUDGE KELLER concurred in the opinion of the court. For these reasons the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The factual situation in Patterson was too dissimilar from the multiple indecency offenses occurring at different times from the penetration offenses. The court held that Loving was the controlling precedent that should have been followed by the court of appeals, not Patterson. In Loving, the court found that two convictions of indecency with a child could be sustained where they occurred from separate acts. Upholding Maldonado’s conviction, the court found support in Loving v. 2014), explaining that that case held double jeopardy “barred multiple convictions that were based on a single continuous act.” The court went further in analyzing and distinguishing Aekins v. The court distinguished the single act in Patterson from the facts surrounding Maldonado, finding that there were many “acts of both contact and penetration” that occurred over a matter of years. Explaining its decision in Patterson, the court found that it was a narrow holding based on the specific facts of the case. The court found that the subsumption theory under Patterson is still valid. ![]() State is still valid and (2) if it is valid, whether an offense alleging sexual contact is subsumed by an offense alleging sexual penetration, even where the evidence points to multiple separate instances of penetration any of which could have formed the basis for each offense. Two issues were brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals: (1) whether the subsumption theory of Patterson v. The court of appeals modified the judgment, vacating two of the convictions for indecency with a child by contact. Explaining its ruling, the court of appeals found that no offense of indecency with a child was committed “separate and apart from” the aggravated sexual assault offenses. The court of appeals agreed with Maldonado, citing Patterson v. Maldonado argued double jeopardy that two counts of indecency with a child were subsumed by the aggravated sexual assault convictions. JUDGE MEYERS delivered the opinion of the court.Ī jury convicted Anthony Maldonado of twelve counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. Case Summary written by Petrus Wassdorf, Staff Member.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |