Butler v. Fogg

Background

A man was first charged in one New York county with possessing stolen property, pleaded guilty, and received one year in county jail. Later, he was indicted in a neighboring county for burglary arising from the same episode. He objected that the second case violated the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense, but a jury convicted him and gave an indeterminate sentence not to exceed five years. New York appellate courts affirmed, a federal district court denied habeas relief, and the Federal Court of Appeals affirmed before the Court declined to review the case.

Reasoning

The core question presented in the dissent is whether prosecuting related charges in separate counties amounts to being tried twice for the same incident. The dissenting Justice argued that the two counties are not separate authorities for purposes of the double-jeopardy rule and relied on prior decisions saying all charges that grow out of a single episode should be prosecuted in one proceeding. He would have granted review and reversed the lower-court judgment because, in his view, the Constitution bars this kind of successive prosecution by different counties.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to hear the case, the lower-court rulings, conviction, and sentence remain in effect for this defendant. The dissent highlights a continuing debate about whether different local prosecutors can bring separate cases from the same incident. This ruling was a denial of review rather than a final decision resolving that broader legal question, so the issue could be revisited later.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent, joined by another Justice, sets out the view that the Double Jeopardy protection applies against successive prosecutions in separate counties and called for reversal of the conviction.