Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Grady v. Corbin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Proceduredouble jeopardysame conduct testDWIDouble Jeopardy Clausesuccessive prosecutionsBlockburgersame conduct test

Facts

Corbin drove across the double yellow line and struck two oncoming vehicles, seriously injuring Daniel Dirago and causing the death of Brenda Dirago. The same night, he was charged by traffic tickets with driving while intoxicated and failing to keep right of the median, and he later pleaded guilty to those offenses. Two months later, a grand jury indicted him for reckless manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, reckless assault, and driving while intoxicated based on the same accident. In a bill of particulars, the State said it would prove the homicide and assault charges by showing that Corbin drove while intoxicated, failed to keep right of the median, and drove too fast in heavy rain.

Issue

Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits a later prosecution for homicide and assault after the defendant has already been prosecuted for traffic offenses arising out of the same incident, when the State intends to prove the earlier traffic-offense conduct to establish essential elements of the later charges.

Rule

A court must first apply the Blockburger test in successive-prosecution cases. If the offenses have identical statutory elements or one is a lesser included offense of the other, the later prosecution is barred; even if Blockburger is satisfied, the Double Jeopardy Clause also bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Noah Benton pleaded guilty in municipal court to misdemeanor reckless driving after a late-night collision. Weeks later, state prosecutors charged him in superior court with felony vehicular homicide under a statute that, as defined by state law, requires proof of all elements of reckless driving plus the victim's death.

Under the majority's approach, is the later vehicular homicide prosecution barred?

Explanation. The majority requires a two-step approach. Step one is Blockburger. If the offenses have identical statutory elements or one is a lesser included offense of the other, the inquiry ends and the later prosecution is barred. Here, vehicular homicide as defined by state law includes all elements of reckless driving plus death, so the earlier offense is lesser included. The bar applies after a prior conviction as well as after an acquittal.