Harris v. Oklahoma
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
A clerk in a Tulsa, Okla., grocery store was shot and killed by a companion of petitioner in the course of a robbery of the store by the two men. Petitioner was convicted of felony-murder in Oklahoma State court. The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case states that “[i]n a felony murder case, the proof of the underlying felony [here robbery with firearms] is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction.” 555 P. 2d 76, 80-81 (1976). Petitioner nevertheless was thereafter brought to trial and convicted on a separate information charging the robbery with firearms, after denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that this prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he had been already convicted of the offense in the felony-murder trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one. * In re *683 Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (1889); cf. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161 (1977). “[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.” In re Nielsen, supra, at 188 . See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387 (1970); Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, 352 (1907).
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is Reversed.
The State conceded in its response to the petition for certiorari that “in the Murder case, it was necessary for all the ingredients of the under *683 lying felony of Robbery with Firearms to be proved . . . .” Brief in Opposition 4.
Concurrence
Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion but in any event would reverse on a ground not addressed by the Court, namely, that the State did not prosecute the two informations in one proceeding. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U. S. 1053 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and cases collected therein.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
433 U.S. 682 (1977)
HARRIS
v.
OKLAHOMA No. 76-5663.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Decided June 29, 1977. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA
PER CURIAM.
A clerk in a Tulsa, Okla., grocery store was shot and killed by a companion of petitioner in the course of a robbery of the store by the two men. Petitioner was convicted of felony-murder in Oklahoma State court. The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case states that "[i]n a felony murder case, the proof of the underlying felony [here robbery with firearms] is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction." 555 P. 2d 76, 80-81 (1976). Petitioner nevertheless was thereafter brought to trial and convicted on a separate information charging the robbery with firearms, after denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that this prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he had been already convicted of the offense in the felony-murder trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one. [*] In re *683 Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (1889); cf. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161 (1977). "[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence." In re Nielsen, supra, at 188 . See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387 (1970); Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, 352 (1907).
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion but in any event would reverse on a ground not addressed by the Court, namely, that the State did not prosecute the two informations in one proceeding. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of "all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction." Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (BRENNAN, J., concurring). See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U. S. 1053 (1977) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and cases collected therein.
NOTES
[*] The State conceded in its response to the petition for certiorari that "in the Murder case, it was necessary for all the ingredients of the underlying felony of Robbery with Firearms to be proved . . . ." Brief in Opposition 4.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 49 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that appellant, who had been tried and convicted of felony murder, could not be subsequently tried under a separate indictment for the predicate felony)
-
(holding that, for double jeopardy purposes, robbery with a firearm is the same offense as felony murder predicated on armed robbery)
-
(Barring felony murder and robbery with a firearm prosecution stemming from the same grocery store robbery)
-
(underlying felony and felony murder merge into one offense for purposes of double jeopardy in Oklahoma)
-
(Court rules that felony-murder and the underlying felony are the same offense under the Blockburger test)
-
(to obtain a conviction for felony murder, State was required to prove “all the ingredients” of the underlying felony of robbery with firearms)
-
(conviction of a greater offense bars subsequent trial for a lesser included offense)
-
(where the initial jeopardy for felony-murder had terminated before the subsequent jeopardy for the predicate felony of robbery began)
Cited by 447 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court19
- U.S. Courts of Appeals97
- Federal District Courts21
- Military Courts5
- State Highest Courts160
- State Appellate Courts139
- State Trial Courts4
- Territorial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.