Davis v. Commonwealth

I write separately in this opinion because I concur in the result but respectfully disagree -with the majority’s double jeopardy analysis as it pertains to the nature of the prosecution. In footnote 5 of its opinion, the majority assumes without deciding that Davis’s prosecutions were successive rather than simultaneous. I would hold that Davis’s prosecutions were simultaneous.

“No person shall be ... subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb____” U.S. Const, amend. V. “The constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy has been held to consist of three separate…