Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Aspen

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1987No. 15612Published

1DissentMiller, Justice

I dissent. Although I agree that the double jeopardy clause may apply to some enhancement proceeding issues, it does not apply here. Initially, I must observe that it is settled law that a person may be tried a second time for an offense that has been set aside on appeal. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 *886(1896). See generally State v. Percy, 81 S.D. 519, 137 N.W.2d 888 (S.D.1965). This principle alone could justify an affirmance here.

Further, the majority opinion, in misapplying double…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Burgett v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. United States v. BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  4. Undem v. State Board of Law ExaminersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
  5. State Ex Rel. Smith v. JamesonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1963

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API