State v. Vernell Teynac Hennings
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrachtenbach, J.
This case presents the issue whether the State may appeal a trial court dismissal of a habitual criminal charge when the dismissal is based upon insufficient evidence. Respondent argues that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the State from attempting again to prove that charge. We hold that the double jeopardy clause bars a second habitual criminal proceeding where the State initially fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the validity of each conviction necessary to establish habitual criminal status.
On October 1, 1981, the court, on the basis of stipulated facts, found Vernell Teynac…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Tibbs v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Duren v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Parke v. RaleySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Caspari v. BohlenSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Monge v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- State v. ThorneWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. GockenWashington Supreme Court · 1995
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.