Cichos v. Indiana
385 U.S. 76 (1966)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Cichos v. Indiana, 385 U.S. 76 (1966)

Cichos v. Indiana

No. 45

Argued October 19, 1966

Decided November 14, 1966

385 U.S. 76

Syllabus

Following trial of petitioner on two counts for reckless homicide and for involuntary manslaughter, the jury found him guilty of reckless homicide. The State Supreme Court granted him a new trial, and he was retried on both counts, the second jury returning the same verdict as the first. The same prison sentence as before, and a lower fine, were imposed. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner's contention that the first jury's silence on the manslaughter charge constituted an acquittal, and that retrial on that count had unconstitutionally subjected petitioner to double jeopardy.

Held: the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Pp. 385 U. S. 77-80.

(a) Under Indiana law, the acknowledgedly overlapping offenses of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide (which carries a lesser penalty) are treated more as one offense with different penalties than as a greater and an included offense. A final judgment of conviction of one bars prosecution for the other, and, if there is a conviction for both offenses, a penalty can be imposed for only one. Pp. 385 U. S. 78-79.

(b) As the Indiana Supreme Court held, because of the identity of the elements of the two crimes and the known trial court practice of instructing the jury to return a verdict on but one of the charges, the jury's silence on the involuntary manslaughter count was not tantamount to acquittal, the reckless homicide verdict encompassed the elements of involuntary manslaughter, and petitioner was given the lesser penalty. Pp. 385 U. S. 79-80.

Reported below: ___ Ind. ___, 208 N.E.2d 685, ___ Ind. ___, 210 N.E.2d 363.

Page 385 U. S. 77

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.