Benton v. Maryland

Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy.At the second trial Benton's sentence of 15 years on the burglary count and five years for the larceny was to run concurrently, and after oral argument, as Justice Marshall wrote in his opinion of the court, "it became clear that the existence of a concurrent sentence on the burglary count might prevent the Court from reaching the double jeopardy issue, at least if we found that any error affected only petitioner's larceny conviction.The case was scheduled for reargument, 393 U. S. 994 (1968), limited to the following additional question not included in the original writ: "Does the 'concurrent sentence doctrine,' enunciated in Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 105, and subsequent cases, have continuing validity in light of such decisions as Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633, n. 2, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-238, and Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 50-58?"There was no protection against double jeopardy in Maryland from its state constitution, but the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and so made it enforceable against the states.Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote: It is clear that petitioner's larceny conviction cannot stand once federal double jeopardy standards are applied.
Supreme Court of the United StatesL. Ed. 2dDue Process ClauseEarl WarrenHugo BlackWilliam O. DouglasJohn M. Harlan IIWilliam J. Brennan Jr.Potter StewartByron WhiteThurgood MarshallU.S. Const. amend. VPalko v. ConnecticutWikisourcedouble jeopardyFifth Amendmentapplies to the stateslarcenyburglaryacquittedconvictedsentencedMaryland Court of AppealsMaryland Constitutionjurorsbelief in the existence of Godnew trialcertiorarioral argumentGinsberg v. New YorkSibron v. New Yorkstate constitutionFourteenth AmendmentList of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395Incorporation of the Bill of RightsUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureGrand JuryHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainWong Wing v. United StatesMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonDouble Jeopardy ClauseBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsSmith v. United StatesUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United StatesEx parte BigelowLouisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberBaxstrom v. HeroldNorth Carolina v. PearceSelf-Incrimination ClauseUnited States v. SullivanGriffin v. CaliforniaMiranda v. ArizonaWilliams v. FloridaEdwards v. ArizonaOregon v. ElstadIllinois v. PerkinsMcNeil v. WisconsinMitchell v. United StatesUnited States v. HubbellDickerson v. United StatesChavez v. MartinezYarborough v. AlvaradoMissouri v. SeibertUnited States v. PataneFlorida v. PowellMaryland v. ShatzerBerghuis v. ThompkinsJ. D. B. v. North CarolinaBobby v. DixonHowes v. FieldsSalinas v. TexasVega v. Tekoh