Harris v. Oklahoma

Background

In 1971 a grocery store clerk in Tulsa was shot and killed during a robbery. The man now challenging the prosecutions was tried twice: he was convicted of armed robbery in July 1973 and convicted of felony murder in November 1973, the robbery being an essential element of the murder charge. He sought post-conviction relief claiming his protection against being tried twice for the same offense, and a state appeals court later vacated the felony-murder conviction because of that concern.

Reasoning

The immediate question was whether the Oklahoma court’s orders rightly allowed further trials for homicide related to the same robbery. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the murder conviction but said the defendant could still be tried on lesser homicide charges that do not require proving the armed robbery as an essential element. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case, which leaves that state-court resolution in place.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the Oklahoma rulings stand: the felony-murder conviction has been vacated, but the state may pursue other homicide charges tied to the same incident so long as those charges do not depend on proving the armed robbery element. The defendant therefore faces potential additional state trials for different degrees of homicide arising from the same episode, and the broader legal question about how broadly double-jeopardy protection applies in such situations remains unresolved by the high court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the denial of review, arguing that double-jeopardy protections should generally require trying all charges from a single transaction together and that certiorari should have been granted to decide that issue.