DWAYNE SCRIBER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Barbera, Filed March 5, 2014,
Double Jeopardy- Failure to obey a lawful order by police (FTO) and fleeing/eluding police are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.

Defendant was charged with failure to obey a lawful order and fleeing/eluding in district court. The defendant was acquitted of FTO and convicted of fleeing/eluding charges. The defendant then appealed de novo and claimed that re-trial was barred due to double jeopardy.

The CoA assumed, without deciding, that an appeal de novo from district court was a continuing unit of jeopardy and not two distinct units.

Notes from the case regarding double jeopardy:

– In order for two charges to represent the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, they must be the same “in fact” and “in law.”
– “In fact” refers to whether they arise out of the same incident or course of conduct
– “In law” refers to the Blockburger test: where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.
– By definition, lesser-included and greater-inclusive offenses are considered the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.
– Double jeopardy includes the claim of collateral estoppel as well as autrefois acquit.

Other notes from the case:
– Fleeing and eluding- lawfulness is not an element of fleeing and eluding police