Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearinghabeas corpuscriminal lawdouble jeopardyrespondent
hearingcriminal lawdouble jeopardyrespondent

Related Cases

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98, 71 USLW 4125, 71 USLW 4158, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1957, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2471, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 140
View Case »
Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628
View Case »
People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894, 959 P.2d 183, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5949, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8259
View Case »
U.S. v. Broce Const. Co., Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1983 WL 1953, 1984-1 Trade Cases P 65,849
View Case »
Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346

Facts

The respondent, a 17-year-old, was charged in juvenile court with robbery after allegedly committing the act while armed. Following a hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations true and later determined that he was unfit for juvenile treatment, leading to his prosecution as an adult. After being convicted in Superior Court for the same offense, he filed a habeas corpus petition claiming double jeopardy.

On February 9, 1971, a petition was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Juvenile Court, Alleging that respondent, then 17 years of age, was a person described by Cal.Welf. & Inst'ns Code s 602 (1966), in that, on or about February 8, while armed with a deadly weapon, he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in violation of Cal.Penal Code s 211 (1970).

Issue

Did the prosecution of the respondent as an adult after juvenile court proceedings violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Did the prosecution of the respondent as an adult after juvenile court proceedings violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Rule

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, and this protection applies to juvenile court proceedings as well.

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, and this protection applies to juvenile court proceedings as well.

Analysis

The Court determined that jeopardy attached during the juvenile court's adjudicatory hearing, which was aimed at establishing whether the respondent committed acts violating criminal law. The Court emphasized that the potential consequences of the juvenile proceedings, including stigma and loss of liberty, were significant enough to warrant double jeopardy protections.

The Court determined that jeopardy attached during the juvenile court's adjudicatory hearing, which was aimed at establishing whether the respondent committed acts violating criminal law. The Court emphasized that the potential consequences of the juvenile proceedings, including stigma and loss of liberty, were significant enough to warrant double jeopardy protections.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's prosecution in Superior Court after the juvenile court proceedings violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and thus the adult conviction was vacated.

The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's prosecution in Superior Court after the juvenile court proceedings violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and thus the adult conviction was vacated.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed because the Supreme Court found that he had been subjected to double jeopardy by being tried as an adult after already being adjudicated in juvenile court.

The respondent prevailed because the Supreme Court found that he had been subjected to double jeopardy by being tried as an adult after already being adjudicated in juvenile court.

You must be