California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Johnny R., In re, 33 Cal.App.4th 1579, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 43 (Cal. App. 1995):
The minor was placed on trial for the offense of assault with a deadly weapon. The first witness had been called and sworn, thus jeopardy within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause had attached. The amendment of the petition to allege a new offense, however, does not violate the double jeopardy clause. First, the purpose of the amendment was to add a new offense, different than that for which the minor had been placed on trial. Second, the focus of the double jeopardy clause is to prevent acquitted defendants from being retried or defendants harassed by multiple prosecution efforts to rebuild its case in separate proceedings. Here, the trial was ongoing. The minor had neither been acquitted nor convicted. No new or separate proceeding was involved in the amendment process. The minor remained in jeopardy throughout the trial and the case had not yet been resolved at the time the juvenile court permitted the amendment. Once resolved, principles of double jeopardy would prevent retrial of the charge for which the minor was effectively acquitted and for the charge for which he was convicted, absent a reversal of that conviction on appeal. (See generally Oregon v. Kennedy (1982) 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72
Page 45
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.