united-states fifth-amendment double-jeopardy
Does double jeopardy apply if you commit the same crime twice?
<p>Suppose someone were to rob a convenience store, be charged with robbery, then be found not guilty in court. After they are found innocent, that same person robs the same convenience store again. Would that person be protected from a charge of the same law by rule of double jeopardy?</p>

<p>No. Double jeopardy would not apply.</p>
<p>You can't be prosecuted twice for committing the same (or a lesser included crime) arising from the same incident twice.</p>
<p>If you commit a new crime you can be prosecuted for that new offense, even if you were acquitted of committing a similar offense at a different time and place in the past.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<h3>The second prosecution could proceed</h3>
<p>The principle against double jeopardy, reflected in <a href="https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11h.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">s. 11(h) of the <em>Charter</em></a> and in the special plea of <em>autrefois acquit</em> only precludes a successive prosecution for the very same wrong or &quot;delict.&quot;</p>
<p>A person may not be placed twice in jeopardy &quot;upon the same facts&quot; (<a href="https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4274/index.do" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Kienapple v. The Queen</em>, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729</a>). A new instance of the offence is not &quot;the same facts&quot;: &quot;<strong>offenders have always been exposed to criminal liability for each occassion on which they have transgressed the law</strong>&quot; (<a href="https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/174/index.do" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>R. v. Prince</em>, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 480</a>).\</p>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-united-states-tooltip-container">united-states</a></p>
<p>I agree with <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93212/46948">ohwilleke's statement</a> of U.S. law; I disagree with paragraphs 2 and 3 of <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93222/46948">Acccumulation's answer</a>. A successive prosecution of a lesser or a greater included offence <em>is</em> prohibited by the rule against double jeopardy. See <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/432/161/" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Brown v. Ohio</em>, 432 U.S. 161 (1977)</a>, which was precisely on this issue.</p>

<p>Double Jeopardy prohibits prosecution on the same facts. So if one prosecution is based on you robbing a convenience store on Monday, and another prosecution is based on you robbing a convenience store on Tuesday, then Double Jeopardy doesn't prohibit both prosecutions.</p>
<p>This then is a bit of a loophole, as if there's a law that says that it's illegal to rob a convenience store, and another law that says that it's illegal to engage in robbery on Monday, then &quot;You robbed a store, and it was a convenience store&quot; and &quot;You robbed a store, and you did it on Monday&quot; would be different sets of facts, and so you could be prosecuted twice, once for each law. So if the legislature really wanted to, they could write a bunch of laws that all slightly differ, and allow people to be prosecuted over and over again without it being considered a violation of Double Jeopardy.</p>
<p>There does have to be at least one element in the first charge that isn't included in the new one, though. So if you are first charged under a law that prohibits robbing a convenience store on a Monday, and are acquitted, and then charged under a law that prohibits robbing convenience stores without regard to the day, then the second prosecution is not prohibited, because there's an element of the first charge (day of the week) that isn't included in the second. But if you're first charged under a law that prohibits robbing convenience stores without regard to the day and are acquitted, and then charged under a law that prohibits robbing a convenience store on a Monday, then that prosecution is prohibited, because all of the elements of the first charge are present in the second. Basically, if you didn't rob a store, then it logically follows that you didn't rob a store on Monday. But if you didn't rob a store on Monday, it doesn't logically follow that you didn't rob a store at all.</p>
<p>Double Jeopardy also doesn't protect against prosecution by different jurisdictions, so if Mexico charges you with smuggling drugs into the US and you're acquitted, the US can still prosecute you. Not only are different countries considered different jurisdictions, but states within the US are considered different from each other and from the federal government.</p>
