Benton v. Maryland

Background

A Maryland man was first tried for burglary and larceny, acquitted of larceny but convicted of burglary and sentenced to ten years. After a state decision struck down a juror-religion rule, his case was sent back and he chose a new trial. At the second trial he was convicted of both crimes and given concurrent sentences. He appealed, arguing that retrying him for larceny after an earlier acquittal violated the rule against being tried twice for the same offense.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two main questions: whether the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy applies to state prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment, and whether the existence of a concurrent sentence made review improper. The majority held that the double jeopardy protection is a fundamental constitutional guarantee and therefore applies to the States, overruling the older Palko approach. The Court also explained that having concurrent sentences does not automatically block review because criminal convictions can have future collateral effects. Because Maryland’s courts had already decided the double jeopardy claim on direct appeal, the Supreme Court reached the federal question and reversed the larceny conviction.

Real world impact

States must follow the federal double jeopardy rule in state criminal trials. Retrials that force a defendant to give up a valid acquittal for the chance to appeal another conviction are limited. The burglary conviction and sentencing issues were left to the state courts to examine further on remand.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion emphasized conserving judicial resources and preserving the concurrent-sentence rule as an administrative tool; a dissent urged avoiding the broad constitutional ruling and retaining the older approach.