Scriber v. State, 86 A.3d 1260

Scriber was charged in District Court with disobeying a lawful order and four counts of fleeing and eluding police; District Court acquitted the order charge but convicted fleeing/eluding and other offenses.
Scriber filed a de novo appeal to Circuit Court and moved to dismiss the fleeing/eluding charges based on double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.
Circuit Court denied the motion; Scriber sought certiorari to challenge that denial.
The State argued double jeopardy did not bar the Circuit Court prosecution because fleeing/eluding is not the same offense as disobeying a lawful order under Blockburger, and the de novo appeal is not a new prosecution.
The Court held that disobeying a lawful order and fleeing/eluding are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, and collateral estoppel does not bar de novo prosecution; denial of the motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether acquittal on disobeying a lawful order bars Circuit Court fleeing/eluding	Scriber argues double jeopardy as vertical bar (autrefois acquit)	State contends de novo appeal is not a new prosecution and offenses are not the same under Blockburger	Not barred; offenses not the same under Blockburger
Whether lesser-included/offense relationships bar new charges	Scriber asserts disobeying a lawful order is a lesser-included offense of fleeing/eluding	State argues lawfulness is an element only in disobeying, not in fleeing/eluding	Not barred; not the same offense; lawfulness is an element for disobeying only
Whether collateral estoppel bars de novo Circuit Court prosecution	Scriber contends a factual finding of no signal to stop was implicit in acquittal	State argues collateral estoppel does not apply in de novo appeals; lower court findings are set aside	Collateral estoppel does not bar; no decisive ultimate-fact finding in District Court binding Circuit Court
Whether de novo appeal constitutes a continuing or successive prosecution	Scriber relies on continued jeopardy	State argues it is part of a single continuing jeopardy, not a separate prosecution	Court assumes, without deciding, that de novo is a successive prosecution; not fatal to State’s charges

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. Supreme Court 1932) (same-elements test; two offenses require proof of different facts)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (lesser-included offenses; double jeopardy when one offense contains no additional proof)
Anderson v. State, 385 Md. 123 (Md. 2005) (same-offense analysis under Blockburger; de novo appeal context discussed)
Odum v. State, 412 Md. 593 (Md. 2010) (double jeopardy and collateral estoppel; incorporation in Maryland law)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court 1970) (collateral estoppel defined; ultimate-fact issue litigated once cannot be relitigated)
Washington v. State, 200 Md. App. 641 (Md. App. 2011) (discussion of separate sentences for fleeing/eluding; signals vs. lawful orders)
Jones v. State, 319 Md. 279 (Md. 1990) (verbal signals and seizures; distinguishes from formal order concepts)
Bush v. State, 289 Md. 669 (Md. 1981) (common-law resisting arrest; relevance of 'lawful' arrestee conduct)