State v. Lamp
2013 Ohio 1219
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Lamp was arrested May 18, 2012, and charged with misdemeanor theft.
- Grand jury indicted Lamp on one count of breaking and entering, a felony of the fifth degree.
- Lamp pleaded guilty to theft in municipal court on July 20, 2012.
- Lamp moved to dismiss the felony indictment on double jeopardy grounds, which the trial court granted after a hearing.
- On appeal, the State challenges the dismissal, arguing double jeopardy analysis requires a Blockburger test rather than allied offenses analysis.
- The appellate court reverses, remanding for application of Blockburger to determine if double jeopardy bars successive prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment was properly dismissed on double jeopardy grounds | Lamp relied on Johnson's allied-offenses standard to argue dismissal. | State contends Blockburger controls for successive prosecutions. | Trial court erred; remand to apply Blockburger test for double jeopardy analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (redefines allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25)
- State v. Zima, 102 Ohio St.3d 61 (Ohio 2004) (Blockburger-based analysis for same offense; not controlled by Rance when only successive-prosecution issues are involved)
- State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio 1999) (allied offenses framework prior to Johnson)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. Supreme Court 1932) (same act may violate two statutes if each requires proof of an additional fact)