People v. Colombo, 31 N.Y.2d 947 (1972)
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a subsequent criminal prosecution for the same contemptuous act for which a defendant was previously punished via civil contempt proceedings, when the initial contempt was deemed ‘criminal’ in nature by the Supreme Court.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the indictment against Colombo, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred his prosecution under the former Penal Law for contempt. Colombo had previously been punished for contempt of court under the Judiciary Law for refusing to testify before a grand jury. Because the Supreme Court determined the Judiciary Law contempt was ‘criminal’ in Colombo v. New York, the Court of Appeals found the subsequent indictment for the same offense violated double jeopardy principles. The court emphasized that the same evidence supported both the Judiciary Law contempt and the Penal Law contempt, and the elements of the two charges were identical.
Facts
Colombo refused to testify before a Grand Jury on October 14, 1965, after being granted immunity.
On December 7, 1965, Justice Barshay ordered Colombo to return to the same Grand Jury and testify.
Colombo refused to obey Justice Barshay’s order.
Colombo was initially punished for contempt of court pursuant to Section 750 of the Judiciary Law for his refusal.
Colombo was subsequently indicted for his refusal to obey Justice Barshay’s order under Section 600 of the former Penal Law.
Procedural History
The defendant was initially punished for contempt under the Judiciary Law.
The defendant was later indicted under the former Penal Law for the same act of contempt.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Colombo v. New York, 405 U.S. 9 (1972), determined that Colombo’s initial punishment for contempt was for “criminal” contempt under the specific facts of the case.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to allow the indictment to stand.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the indictment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars a subsequent indictment under the former Penal Law for contempt, when the defendant has already been punished for the same contemptuous act under the Judiciary Law, and the Supreme Court has characterized the initial punishment as