State v. Hollinger
101 N.E.3d 91
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 18, 2016, Hollinger was involved in a hit-and-run collision in Licking County, then fled and continued driving while intoxicated into Fairfield County, where he was later in a separate two-vehicle crash.
- Hollinger pled guilty the same month to an OVI in Mansfield Municipal Court (third OVI in six years) and later pleaded guilty / no contest to OVI in Licking County and felony OVI in Fairfield County.
- Fairfield County charged Hollinger with felony OVI based on the crash there; Hollinger moved to dismiss arguing double jeopardy/res judicata because his conduct was a single continuous course.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion, finding Hollinger’s conduct in each county caused separate, identifiable harm and evidenced separate animus.
- Hollinger appealed the denial; he ultimately entered a no-contest plea in Fairfield County and was sentenced to community control and jail time, but preserved the double jeopardy challenge for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successive prosecutions for OVI in Licking and Fairfield Counties violate double jeopardy / R.C. 2941.25 | State: prosecutions valid because each offense involved separate harm and occurred separately | Hollinger: his driving while intoxicated was a single continuous act, so multiple prosecutions punish the same offense | Court: offenses are of dissimilar import with separate, identifiable harm and separate animus; prosecutions may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (addresses double jeopardy and successive prosecutions)
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (double jeopardy policy against repeated prosecutions)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (double jeopardy and legislative intent on multiple punishments)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for same offense in successive proceedings)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- State v. Zima, 102 Ohio St.3d 61 (Ohio adoption of Blockburger test)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (R.C. 2941.25 analysis: conduct, animus, import; separate victims or separate identifiable harms mean no merger)
- State v. Roberts, 119 Ohio St.3d 294 (discusses double jeopardy purpose and protections)
- State v. Moss, 69 Ohio St.2d 515 (double jeopardy guards against cumulative punishment)