Truitt v. Ohio

Background

Uniformed police officers watched a man selling drugs, chased him when he ran, and recovered a paper bag he dropped. The bag contained Talwin and the drug from the earlier sale. He was convicted of two misdemeanors (possession and assault) and later indicted for felony drug trafficking; the trial court dismissed that trafficking charge as barred by his earlier conviction, but the Ohio appeals court reversed.

Reasoning

The main question was whether being convicted for possession in the same incident prevents a later prosecution for trafficking that grew out of the same events. The Supreme Court refused to review the Ohio appeals court’s reversal. In a dissent, Justice Brennan argued the Constitution’s ban on being tried twice for the same offense (the Double Jeopardy Clause) generally requires that all charges from a single criminal transaction be prosecuted together, and he would have granted review and reversed the appeals court.

Real world impact

Because the high court declined review, the appeals court ruling stands for now, allowing the State to pursue a separate, later trafficking prosecution after a possession conviction in this case. That means people charged with related drug offenses may face successive prosecutions unless the Supreme Court takes up the issue later or state courts change course.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the denial of review and argued forcefully that double jeopardy should bar successive trials arising from the same criminal episode.