Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether a defendant's no contest pleas to misdemeanor offenses barred continued prosecution on corresponding felony charges under the federal and state Double Jeopardy Clauses. Relying on Ohio v. Johnson, the court held that double jeopardy did not presently bar prosecution of multiple offenses in a single proceeding where the defendant had not been tried or sentenced on the felony charges. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the plea in bar.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether acceptance of Humbert's no-contest pleas to misdemeanor offenses that may be lesser-included offenses of pending felony charges immediately barred further prosecution of the felony charges under the federal and Nebraska Double Jeopardy Clauses.
- Whether the district court properly overruled Humbert's plea in bar.
Holdings
- The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the State from continuing to prosecute multiple offenses in a single prosecution merely because the defendant has pleaded no contest to some offenses that may be lesser-included offenses of the remaining charges. Because Humbert had not been tried on or sentenced for the felony charges, he had no present double-jeopardy violation.
- The grant or denial of a plea in bar presents a question of law reviewed independently by the appellate court.
Key quotations
“While the Double Jeopardy Clause may protect a defendant against cumulative punishments for convictions on the same offense, the Clause does not prohibit the State from prosecuting [the defendant] for such multiple offenses in a single prosecution.” (467 U.S. at 500)
“On the other hand, ending prosecution now would deny the State its right to one full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws.” (467 U.S. at 501-02)
“Double jeopardy protects a defendant against cumulative punishments for convictions on the same offense; however, it does not prohibit the State from prosecuting a defendant for multiple offenses in a single prosecution.” (272 Neb. at 433)
Factual background
Humbert was accused of stabbing and restraining his estranged wife, tying her to furniture with an extension cord, and preventing her from leaving until she escaped and received medical treatment. He was charged with four felonies, including first degree false imprisonment and second degree assault, and two misdemeanors, including second degree false imprisonment and third degree assault. After pleading no contest to the misdemeanors and being convicted, but before being sentenced or tried on the felony charges, Humbert asserted that the felony prosecutions were barred because the misdemeanors were lesser-included offenses.
Procedural history
Humbert was charged in county court with four felonies and was later bound over to district court, where an information added two misdemeanor charges. He pleaded no contest to the misdemeanors, was convicted of them, and then filed a plea in bar arguing that the corresponding felony charges were lesser-included offenses barred by double jeopardy. The district court overruled the plea in bar, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on interlocutory appeal.