State v. Elders - double jeopardy does not bar prosecutions for carjacking and kidnapping
In State v. Elders, decided January 28, the S.C. Court of Appeals held that, when a defendant has pled guilty to carjacking, the double jeopardy clause does not bar a subsequent prosecution and punishment for kidnapping based on the same facts.
Elders was convicted of armed robbery, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and two counts of kidnapping following trial, but before the trial began he pled guilty to carjacking. I'm wondering: 1) why would he plead guilty to carjacking, which carries twenty years, before the trial began; and 2) why would the prosecutor waste the court's time and try him on the remaining counts when carjacking carries twenty years anyway?
Regardless, back to the opinion. The Court holds that, whether it is a multiple punishment or successive prosecution, the Court must analyze it using the "same elements" test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). If each offense requires proof of an element that the other offense does not, then they are two distinct offenses and double jeopardy does not apply. In this case, it can be summed up as: kidnapping requires proof that a person was taken; carjacking requires proof that a car was taken. Different elements (person vs. car) therefore no double jeopardy.
The Court held that photographs showing one victim hooked up to machines in a hospital and showing the second victim in a wheelchair were more probative than prejudicial because the photographs showed the injuries received, and showed that the injuries were likely inflicted by a knife.
The Court also held that four knives introduced as evidence by the state which were not used in and had no connection to the crime should not have been admitted because they were not relevant, but that it was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of Elders' guilt.
