Case Analysis Grady Vs Corbin - 1389 Words

Grady vs Corbin was a United States Supreme Court decision in 1990, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution bars subsequent prosecutions for an offense which the defendant has already been prosecuted. Essentially, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 4th Amendment says no one shall be tried twice for the same offense. The double jeopardy clause serves two functions, both of which should be considered when faced with a double jeopardy problem. One traditional function of the double jeopardy prohibition has been to prevent multiple prosecutions in more than one proceeding, to bar successive prosecutions for the same offense. The purpose of which is to ensure final resolution of substantive criminal†¦show more content†¦He was served with two uniform traffic tickets directing him to appear at a Town Justice Court. One ticket charged him with the misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated (DUI), and the other charged him with failing to k eep to the right of the median. When Corbin pleaded guilty to the traffic tickets in the Town Justice Court, the presiding judge was not informed of the fatality or of a pending homicide investigation. Subsequently, a grand jury indicted Corbin, charging him with reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and third-degree reckless assault. A bill of particulars identified the three reckless or negligent acts on which the prosecution would rely to prove the charges: (1) operating a motor vehicle on a public highway in an intoxicated condition; (2) failing to keep right of the median; and (3) driving at a speed too fast for the weather and road conditions. Corbin s motion to dismiss the indictment on, inter alia, constitutional double jeopardy grounds was denied by the county court. Corbin then sought a writ of prohibition barring prosecution, which was denied by the Appellate Division. The State Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding that the State’s intent ion to rely on prior traffic offenses as the acts necessary to prove the homicide and assault charges. The second prosecution would be barred if the prosecution sought to establish an essential element of the second crime by proving the conduct for