 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Glasser v. Maryland5/29/1991
.2d at 566. Expanding the
traditional Blockburger test, the Court enunciated the following rule:
he Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.
Grady, U.S. at , 110 S.Ct. at 2087, 109 L.Ed.2d at 557 (footnote omitted).
Applying this standard, the Court concluded:
By its own pleadings, the State has admitted that it will prove the entirety of the conduct for which Corbin was convicted -- driving while intoxicated and failing to keep right of the median -- to establish essential elements of the homicide and assault offenses. Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars this successive prosecution, and the New York Court of Appeals properly granted respondent's petition for a writ of prohibition. This holding would not bar a subsequent prosecution on the homicide and assault charges if the bill of particulars revealed that the State would not rely on proving the conduct for which Corbin had already been convicted (i.e., if the State relied solely on Corbin's driving too fast in heavy rain to establish recklessness or negligence).
Grady, U.S. at , 110 S.Ct. at 2093-2094, 109 L.Ed.2d at 565-566 (footnote omitted).
The posture of the case before us compels the same result as that in Grady. Here, appellant was convicted of violating Art. 27, § 388 of the Ann.Code of Md., manslaughter by automobile. Section 388 provides in part:
Every person causing the death of another as the result of the driving, operation or control of an automobile, motor vehicle . . . in a grossly negligent manner shall be guilty of a misdemeanor to be known as 'manslaughter by automobile, motor vehicle . . .' and the person so convicted shall be sentenced to jail or the house of correction for not more than 5 years, or be fined not more than $1,000.00 or be both fined and imprisoned.
To prove grossly negligent conduct on the part of appellant, the prosecutor averred, in the statement of facts, that the fatal collision occurred as appellant travelled in the wrong direction on the beltway. This, of course, echoed appellant's traffic citation for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Appellant had previously admitted guilt on the traffic offense by paying the assessed fine. Subsequently, the State used the same conduct -- driving the wrong way -- to prove gross negligence, an element of manslaughter by automobile. Under the dictates of Grady, this procedure violated due process principles. We must, therefore, reverse appellant's conviction.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY BALTIMORE COUNTY.
Disposition
JUDGMENT REVERSED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY BALTIMORE COUNTY.
Page 1 2 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|