STATE v THORNTON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-498 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsDENNIS D. THORNTON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: District Court o f t h e Eleventh Judicial D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of F l a t h e a d , The H o n o r a b l e M i c h a e l K e e d y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: D o n a l d L. S h a f f e r , ~ i b b y ,Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Ted 0. Lympus, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana M i c h a e l P r e z e a u , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u l y 11, 1 9 8 5 Decided: Filed: OCT 3 i I985 * # Clerk O c t o b e r 3 1 , 1985 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. ?qr. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County, d e c l a r i n g Thornton g u i l t y o f o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r o r Dennis D . other public violation § servant, aggravated of MCA, 45-7-306, $ respectively. On August 45-7-302, 31, 1983, assault, and $ 45-5-202, MCA, escape, in and MCA, W e affirm. i n the afternoon, Art Sarnow, an e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r w i t h t h e Montana Department o f Highways, observed a t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r which appeared to be Sarnow gave p u r s u i t . h a u l - i n g a s k i d d e r and c a t e r p i l l a r overweight and overwidth. Officer H e a c t i v a t e d t h e p u r s u i t l i g h t s on t h e top of h i s patrol c a r , but the truck did not stop. Sarnow c o n t i n u e d side the Finally, truck t o pursue, and Officer and a t one p o i n t drew up a l o n g motioned to the driver a f t e r three miles of pursuit, to pull over. t h e truck pulled off t h e highway o n t o a p r i v a t e d r i v e w a y . O f f i c e r Sarnow a p p r o a c h e d t h e d r i v e r o f t h e t r u c k , Gary Wood, a s h e emerged from t h e v e h i c l e and a s k e d him t o p r o d u c e v a r i o u s p e r m i t s and r e c o r d s . I n t h e meantime, O f f i c e r Sarnow o b s e r v e d t h e p a s s e n g e r i n t h e t r u c k , d e f e n d a n t Dennis Thornt o n , who w e n t t o t h e r e a r o f t h e t r a i l e r and began u n c h a i n i n g t h e skidder with t h e evident intention of the trailer. trailer with Since his Officer portable Sarnow scales removing it from intended to t o weigh the it was determine if o v e r w e i g h t , h e went t o t h e r e a r o f t h e t r a i l e r t o a s k Thornton not t o unload it a t t h i s time. When h i s r e q u e s t was i g n o r e d , O f f i c e r Sarnow r e p e a t e d t h e r e q u e s t . ignored O f f i c e r Sarnow's request, and Thornton a g a i n continued t o unchain t h e skidder. After talking further with M r . observe Thornton unchain the Wood and c o n t i n u i n g t o s k i d d e r and p r e p a r e t o remove i t , O f f i c e r Sarnow r e t u r n e d t o T h o r n t o n and a d v i s e d him t h a t h e was u n d e r a r r e s t f o r r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w t h e w e i g h i n g o f t h e At this time, trailer. Thornton l i f t e d a c h a i n h i n d e r above h i s head and t h r e a t e n e d t o bash O f f i c e r Sarnow's head-in if h e d i d n o t g e t away. O f f i c e r Sarnow r e t r e a t e d from T h o r n t o n i n f e a r o f h i s own s a f e t y , and c a l l e d t h i s point, A t f o r p o l i c e a s s i s t a n c e on h i s r a d i o . O f f i c e r Sarnow r e p e a t e d t o T h o r n t o n t h a t h e Thornton was u n d e r a r r e s t and s h o u l d n o t remove t h e s k i d d e r . continued t o unload doing prepared so, the to s k i d d e r and leave alone c a t e r p i l l a r and in a pick-up. after Officer Sarnow a g a i n i n f o r m e d T h o r n t o n t h a t h e w a s u n d e r a r r e s t a n d should n o t leave. T h o r n t o n t h e n l e f t t h e s c e n e a n d was l a t e r apprehended. T h o r n t o n was s u b s e q u e n t l y f o u n d g u i l t y i n J u s t i c e C o u r t on O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 9 8 3 , o f t h e m i s d e m e a n o r c h a r g e o f o b s t r u c t i n g a § peace officer 45-7-302(1), or MCA. other public official i n violation of Thornton t h e n appealed h i s c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h e a p p e a l was c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t h e two felony charges of aqgravated assault and escape in , v i o l a t i o n o f S 45-5-202(1) ( c ) , MCA, a n d 5 45-7-306(3) (b) (ii) MCA, respectively. A j u r y t r i a l commenced o n March 1 9 , 1 9 8 4 , a n d T h o r n t o n was f o u n d g u i l t y o f a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s . sentenced years to a suspended, total of five years a n d was g i v e n t w o H e was imprisonment w i t h $500 fines. two Defendant appeals h i s convictions. The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l : (1) W h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t was e n t i t l e d t o a n i n s t r u c - t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t ? (2) W h e t h e r a n e s c a p e from " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " a c t u - a l l y o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a s r e q u i r e d b y 5 45-7-306, MCA? (3) Whether the defendant's conviction on the three crimes charged c o n s t i t u t e s double jeopardy? The f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a k t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by n o t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e jury t h a t the offense of cluded offense of r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t was a l e s s o r i n - aggravated assault. the As defendant c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t , it i s a b a s i c r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t the trial theory court's having (1976), instructions support 1 7 1 Mont. in 238, the must cover evidence. 557 P.2d 283. every issue S t a t e v. The or Buckley defendant also correctly recognizes that: ... a defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c t i o n s on l e s s o r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e s i f any e v i d e n c e e x i s t s i n t h e r e c o r d which would p e r m i t t h e j u r y t o r a t i o n a l l y f i n d him g u i l t y o f a l e s s o r o f f e n s e a n d a c q u i t him of a greater. S t a t e v. 651. Ostwald ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 530, 538, 591 P.2d 646, However, w h i l e t h e d e f e n d a n t c o r r e c t l y r e c o g n i z e s t h e law i n t h i s a r e a , h e f a i l s t o a p p l y it t o h i s own c a s e . facts clearly illustrate defendant was given a The lessor i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n which f o l l o w s t h e r a t i o n a l e s e t f o r t h i n Ostwald, quoted above. The t r i a l c o u r t r e c o r d s t a t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n was r e a d and g i v e n t o t h e j u r y : A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f a g g r a v a t - ed a s s a u l t , a f e l o n y , i f h e p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly c a u s e s r e a s o n a b l e a p p r e h e n s i o n o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r by u s e o f a weapon. 1f you d o n o t f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t 1 p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly c a u s e d r e a s o n a b l e apprehension o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i njury i n a n o t h e r by u s e o f a weapon, b u t you d o find that h e p u r p o s e l y o r knowingly caused r e a s o n a b l e apprehension o f b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r , you may, n e v e r t h e l e s s , f i n d him g u i l t y o f t h e l e s s o r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f a s s a u l t , a misdemeanor. The record clearly shows that defendant obtained an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of s i m p l e a s s a u l t , a misdemeanor. This instruction amply c o v e r e d d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e e v e n t a s w e l l a s r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t could have. Under t h e f a c t s o f ence between assault. version offenses Consequently, of simple the t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was no m a t e r i a l d i f f e r - the assault resisting arrest and simple if t h e j u r y had a c c e p t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s it event, and of could acquitted have him found of him guilty aggravated of assault. D e f e n d a n t was n o t , a s h e a r g u e s , d e p r i v e d o f h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o have t h e j u r y c o n s i d e r h i s v e r s i o n o f t h e e v e n t , b e c a u s e t h e lesser i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n on s i m p l e a s s a u l t was I n s h o r t , d e f e n d a n t s u f f e r e d no s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s purpose. harm by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o a c c e p t h i s l a s t - m i n u t e p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . This Court f a i l s t o see how d e f e n d a n t ' s s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y from t h e r a t i o n a l e s e t f o r t h and e n d o r s e d by d e f e n d a n t i n O s t w a l d , q u o t e d above. Defendant (Mont. also presents 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 3 P.2d 1195, the case of 38 St.Rep. S t a t e v. Gopher 1521, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t h e was e n t i t l e d t o a n i n s t r u c t i o n on the lesser included offense of resisting arrest. However, t h e d a n g e r a d v e r t e d t o i n Gopher, t h a t t h e j u r y would b e l i e v e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f some o f f e n s e and would c o n v i c t him o f t h e felony offense it because had present i n t h e i n s t a n t case. was instructed on the no other The j u r y lesser choice, was not i n the instant case included offense of simple C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e j u r y , had i t b e l i e v e d d e f e n d a n t ' s assault. version of the event, assault. c o u l d have found him g u i l t y o f s i m p l e The s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t i n Gopher t h a t t h e j u r y c o u l d h a v e been f o r c e d t o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y - - t h a t is, the j u r y may n o t have wanted t o let the defendant's a c t i o n s go unpunished to aggravated assault s o they because the chose only f i n d him g u i l t y o f a l t e r n a t i v e was acquittal--simply does n o t exist i n t h e i n s t a n t case. District Court did not Therefore, we h o l d t h e commit r e v e r s i b l e error b y r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . The s e c o n d i s s u e r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r whether a n e s c a p e from " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " a c t u a l l y occurred i n t h e present case. As n o t e d a b o v e , d e f e n d a n t w a s a felony, charged and c o n v i c t e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c a p e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f S 45-7-306, MCA. Defendant a s s e r t s t h a t he was wrongly c o n v i c t e d o f t h i s o f f e n s e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e n e v e r provided any e v i d e n c e whatsoever t h a t d e f e n d a n t escaped from "official detention" charge o f escape. Section offense of he 45-7-306 ( 2 ) escape . . . necessary element of the define in by ( 3 ) ( b ) (ii) MCA, , and pertinent the part as follows: "A p e r s o n d e t e n t i o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f knowingly o r p u r p o s e l y detention a We disagree. subject t o official i f is which the use removes h i m s e l f or threat of escape from o f f i c i a l force." Section 45-7-306 (1) f u r t h e r d e f i n e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t t h e p h r a s e "official detention" means and b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e , underlying fore, is element o f an Consequently, by a peace officer I n l i g h t of t h e s e s t a t u t e s , t h i s C o u r t pursuant t o arrest." asserts, "detention t h a t a v a l i d a r r e s t i s an "official detention" underlying element of it becomes n e c e s s a r y the and a l s o , o f f ~ n s eo f t o examine t h e thereescape. facts of t h i s c a s e a n d t h e l a w o f Montana t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d e f e n d a n t was p l a c e d u n d e r a v a l i d a r r e s t . The method o f pertinent statute a valid arrest Montana with i s S 46-6-104, MCA. provides i n pertinent part: in regard to the This s t a t u t e "An a r r e s t i s made by a n a c t u a l r e s t r a i n t o f t h e p e r s o n t o be a r r e s t e d o r b y h i s s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e p e r s o n making t h e a r r e s t . " argues because he d i d n o t Defendant submit t o t h e custody o f Officer Sarnow n o r was h e p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r a i n e d b y O f f i c e r S a r n o w , a valid arrest never occurred. Conversely, the State argues t h a t a p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t a n e c e s s a r y element of a agree with the State. We h a s had v i r t u a l l y no r e p o r t e d c a s e s u n d e r i t s Montana ( S 46-6-104), arrest statute adopted valid arrest. from I l l i n o i s I n P e o p l e v. U s s e r y b u t s i n c e it was i n l a r g e p a r t some o f (111.App. t h e i r cases are instructive. 1 9 7 4 ) , 3 2 1 N.E.2d 7 1 8 , 720-721, an I l l i n o i s A p p e l l a t e c o u r t o u t l i n e d t h e e l e m e n t s o f a r r e s t : An a r r e s t i n v o l v e s t h r e e e l e m e n t s : (I) authority to arrest; (2) a s s e r t i o n of t h a t authority with intention to affect an a r r e s t ; and (3) restraint of the person a r r e s t e d . [Citations omitted. ] Clearly, applied elements of an to the arrest facts of are this case, satisfied. the f i r s t two Officer Sarnow by s t a t u t e had a u t h o r i t y t o a r r e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t and h e o b v i o u s - l y a-sserted h i s authority with t h e i n t e n t i o n o f a r r e s t i n g t h e defendant. The o n l y r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s r e s t r a i n t of t h e defendant. I n resolving t h e question of r e s t r a i n t , there a r e some, mostly older, cases which hold that an oral statement of a r r e s t w i t h o u t any p h y s i c a l touching i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r a valid arrest. (111.App. are S e e 5 Am. J u r . 2 d 1 9 6 8 ) , 240 N.E.2d examining all which c a s e an o r a l Miller (111,App. A r r e s t §1; P e o p l e v . 421. However, m o s t modern c o u r t s circumstances surrounding an arrest, s t a t e m e n t may b e s u f f i c i e n t . 1 9 8 0 ) , 412 N.E.2d 1 9 7 8 ) , 355 So.2d 850; S t a t e v . White 906. Supreme C o u r t The Maine Jackson 175; Bey v. (Neb. recently in People v. State (Fla. 1 9 8 1 ) , 306 N.W.2d refused t o apply a requirement o f p h y s i c a l t o u c h i n g f o r an a r r e s t : Defendant's counsel concedes t h a t defend a n t would h a v e b e e n v a l i d l y a r r e s t e d i f T r o o p e r G a l l a n t had a l s o m e r e l y p l a c e d h i s hand o n d e f e n d a n t ' s arm o r s h o u l d e r . T h e r e i s no r e a s o n f o r making t h e v a l i d i ty of an arrest in the present circumstances turn on such insignificant formality, reminiscent t h e medieval l i v e r y o f s e i s i n . S t a t e v . Donahoe ( M e . Therefore, necessary the element recent cases. of 1 9 8 0 ) , 420 A.2d view that an a arrest an of 9 3 6 , 938. physical is largely W e agree with t h i s position. is restraint discredited a in Furthermore, we a s s e r t t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d f o r an a r r e s t when t h e r e i s n o t a physical r e s t r a i n t o f t h e defendant is whether a reasonable person, i n n o c e n t o f a n y crime, would h a v e f e l t f r e e t o w a l k away u n d e r the circumstances. United States v. United S t a t e s v. Johnson Miller, 412 N.E.2d at 179; (9th Cir. 1980), 626 F.2d 753; (9th C i r . 1981), 658 F.2d 688. O'Connor T h i s s t a n d a r d d r o p s any t e c h n i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a r r e s t and t h e c o n c e p t o f r e s t r a i n t , and i n s t e a d l o o k s upon a l l t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h c a s e . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e t h a t where t h e e n t i r e circum- stances of that any t h i s e n c o u n t e r a r e f a i r l y examined, reasonable person would have u n d e r a r r e s t a n d n o t f r e e t o w a l k away. wearing a obvious law enforcement uniform authority to arrest the it i s c l e a r considered himself O f f i c e r Sarnow was w i t h a badge and had t h e defendant; Officer a d v i s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t h e was v i o l a t i n g t h e law; Sarnow and O f f i c e r Sarnow r e p e a t e d l y t o l d t h e d e f e n d a n t h e was u n d e r a r r e s t a n d should not leave t h e scene. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we h o l d t h e d e f e n - d a n t was p r o p e r l y c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c a p e when h e , a f t e r being validly arrested, secured h i s r e l e a s e by t h r e a t of p h y s i c a l f o r c e o r v i o l e n c e . The t h i r d a n d f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n on t h e three dant's crimes charged c o n s t i t u t c ? ~d o u b l e jeopardy. Defen- argument on t h i s i s s u e i s s k e t c h y , b u t h e a p p e a r s t o b e a r g u i n g t h a t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y e x i s t e d on a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s because all Defendant three charges arose apparently fails to out of the understand same the incident. concept of d o u b l e j e o p a r d y and t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i n t h i s a r e a . D e f e n d a n t s a r g u m e n t r e l i e s upon t h e h o l d i n g found i n Blockburger v. S.Ct. S t a t ~ s ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 284 U.S. United 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 , 76 L.Ed. 299, 304, 52 3 0 6 , 309, w h i c h s t a t e s : The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e i s t h a t w h e r e t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, t h e test t o be applied t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e two o f f e n s e s o r o n l y one i s whether e a c h p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f a f a c t which t h e o t h e r does not. The s o - c a l l e d B l o c k b u r g e r r u l e h a s b e e n a d o p t e d by s t a t u t e i n Montana a t S 46-11-502, S 46-11-502, f i r s t s e n t e n c e of The the MCA. same transaction than one o f f e n s e , prosecuted enumerate may establish the commission "When of more a p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h s u c h c o n d u c t may b e f o r each such offense." some states: MCA, exceptions to The s t a t u t e g o e s on t o this statement. Defendant, h a s n o t i n d i c a t e d which e x c e p t i o n h e r e l i e s o n , b u t however, h i s argument appears t o c e n t e r around e x c e p t i o n exception " [Defendant] states: convicted of more than may one o f f e n s e i f not, (1). This however, . . . one be offense is included i n t h e other." In a series o f r e c e n t c a s e s t h i s C o u r t h a s c l a r i f i e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e B l o c k b u r g e r r u l e and S 46-11-502. determine i f To i s includable within another, one o f f e n s e the a n a l y s i s looks t o t h e s t a t u t o r y elements, not t h e p a r t i c u l a r factual situation. S t a t e v. Ritchson 234, 38 S t . R e p . 1015; S t a t e v . 381, 40 127. St.Rep. If Wells (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 630 P.2d (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 658 P.2d each o f f e n s e c o n t a i n s an element d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e o t h e r t h e r e i s no i n c l u s i o n , e v e n t h o u g h t h e r e may b e a s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r l a p i n p r o o f . (Mont. 1983), 670 P.2d 552, 558, 40 S t a t e v . Madera St.Rep. 1558, 1564, c i t i n g I a n n e l l i v. fn. 1 7 , 95 S.Ct. United S t a t e s 1284, 1294, f n . ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 420 U.S. 770, 616, 1 7 , 43 L.Ed. 627, 785, fn. The c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e a r e a g g r a vated a s s a u l t , can readily and o b s t r u c t i n g a p e a c e o f f i c e r . be determined The . separate escape, elements purposely o r knowingly, sion of serious bodily weapon. t h a t each of of use threat force, : (1) are: ( 4 ) by u s e o f a (1) k n o w i n g l y o r p u r - from o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n , physical are ( 3 ) reasonable apprehen- escape a ( 2 ) removing h i m s e l f offenses assault injury i n another, posely, of agcjravated ( 2 ) cause, The e l e m e n t s o f or these It violence ( 3 ) by o r weapon, (4) a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n p l a c e d u n d e r a r r e s t by a p e a c e o f f i c e r and being subject t o o f f i c i a l detention. Thus e s c a p e and a g g r a - vated a s s a u l t a r e r e a d i l y distinguishable: escape r e q u i r e s an a r r e s t and removal is required quires a from o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n , n e i t h e r o f w h i c h f o r aggravated assault; reasonabl-e apprehension o f aggravated assault serious bodily re- injury, whereas escape r e q u i r e s o n l y a use o r t h r e a t o f f o r c e , physic a l v i o l e n c e o r weapon. The misdemeanor o f f e n s e , (1) k n o w i n g l y , has t h e s e elements: or hinders, (3) o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r , the enforcement of (2) the obstructs, criminal impairs, law, the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e p e a c e , o r t h e performance o f a government function. The t h i r d e l e m e n t i s n o t common t o e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e s and makes it r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e two. Likewise each o f t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e s c o n t a i n s a t l e a s t o n e e l e m e n t n o t common t o t h e o f f e n s e o f o b s t r u c t i n g a p e a c e officer: aggravated a s s a u l t r e q u i r e s a reasonable apprehen- s i o n o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y and e s c a p e r e q u i r e s an a r r e s t . In l i g h t of the above discussion, defendant has not shown t h a t t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him m e e t a n y o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s set f o r t h i n fj a6-11-502, incl-uding exception . (1) In h i s argument, defendant merely a s s e r t s t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t charges w e r e b o r n o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n a n d t h u s w e r e a v i o l a t i o n of the double United States Constitutional However, jeopardy. as fj prohibition 46-11-502, quoted against above, makes c l e a r , d i f f e r e n t c h a r g e s may, a n d o f t e n d o , a r i s e f r o m The c r i t i c a l i n q u i r y i s a s i n g l e o r closely r e l a t e d event. w h e t h ~ rt h e s t a t u t o r y elements o f the various offenses are wholly i n c l u d a b l e w i t h i n one another. aggravated a s s a u l t , examined by t h e i r escape, Here, the offenses of and o b s t r u c t i n g a p e a c e o f f i c e r , s t a t u t o r y elements, a r e not co-extensive. Each h a s a t l e a s t o n e e l e m e n t w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t f r o m t h e other offenses. T h e r e f o w , t h i s Court holds t h e defendant's c o n v i c t i o n s o n t h e t h r e e crimes c h a r g e d d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e double jeopardy. The c o n v i c t i o n s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e a f f i r m e d . W e concur: '' L -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.