Offenses containing at least one element not present in the other do not trigger double jeopardy: EBERENZ V. COM (COA 6/13/2008)

EBERENZ V. COM
CRIMINAL:  Double jeopardy
2007-CA-000349
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL: ACREE PRESIDING; NICKELL, BUCKINGHAM CONCUR
MEADE COUNTY
DATE: 6/13/2008

CA affirmed Defendant’s convictions for First Degree Fleeing or Evading as well as First Degree Wanton Endangerment. These convictions do not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The determination to be made is “whether the act or transaction complained of constitutes a violation of two distinct statutes and, if it does, if each statute requires proof of a fact the other does not.” The question before this court is whether the language of “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life” constitutes a separate element of First Degree Wanton Endangerment for double jeopardy purposes. As each offense contains at least one element not present in the other, convictions on both First Degree Fleeing or Evading and First Degree Wanton Endangerment will not trigger double jeopardy. Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.

Digested by Scott C. Byrd
www.olginandbyrd.com