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

defendantstatutetrialmotionarraignmentdouble jeopardycase lawmotion to dismiss
defendantstatutetrialmotionarraignmentdouble jeopardycase lawmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Wilson v. Mintzes, 761 F.2d 275
View Case »
In re Marriage of Hinds, 205 Cal.App.3d 1398, 253 Cal.Rptr. 170
View Case »
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600
View Case »
Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 135 S.Ct. 891, 190 L.Ed.2d 763, 83 USLW 4071, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 582, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 753, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56
View Case »
People v. Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Petite, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 1352223

Facts

Defendant Isaac Damon Petite was indicted on two counts: Count I for violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 2114(a) by assaulting a mail carrier with intent to rob, and Count II for violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1708 by stealing mail. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Count II, claiming it was a lesser-included offense of Count I, but did so after the pretrial motion deadline had passed without providing good cause for the delay. The Court noted that the indictment had remained unchanged since the arraignment, and the basis for the Defendant's argument was apparent from the indictment itself.

Defendant Isaac Damon Petite was indicted on two counts: Count I for violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 2114(a) by assaulting a mail carrier with intent to rob, and Count II for violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1708 by stealing mail. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Count II, claiming it was a lesser-included offense of Count I, but did so after the pretrial motion deadline had passed without providing good cause for the delay. The Court noted that the indictment had remained unchanged since the arraignment, and the basis for the Defendant's argument was apparent from the indictment itself.

Issue

Whether Count II of the Indictment constitutes a lesser-included offense of Count I, thereby violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Whether Count II of the Indictment constitutes a lesser-included offense of Count I, thereby violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Rule

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a person from being punished for the same offense twice. The 'same-elements' test, or 'Blockburger' test, determines if two offenses are the same by assessing whether each offense contains an element not found in the other.

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V.

Analysis

The Court analyzed the elements of the two statutes involved, finding that the offenses charged in Count I and Count II did not meet the 'same-elements' test. The Court noted that the Defendant's actions of assaulting the mail carrier and later taking possession of the mail at a different location required different proof and were not contemporaneous as defined in prior case law. Therefore, the elements of Count II were not subsumed within those of Count I.

The Court analyzed the elements of the two statutes involved, finding that the offenses charged in Count I and Count II did not meet the 'same-elements' test. The Court noted that the Defendant's actions of assaulting the mail carrier and later taking possession of the mail at a different location required different proof and were not contemporaneous as defined in prior case law. Therefore, the elements of Count II were not subsumed within those of Count I.

Conclusion

The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that the two offenses were distinct and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that the two offenses were distinct and did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Who won?

The Government prevailed in this case because the Court found that the two counts were distinct offenses and that the Defendant's motion was untimely without good cause.

The Government prevailed in this case because the Court found that the two counts were distinct offenses and that the Defendant's motion was untimely without good cause.

You must be