Summary

Byron White Cichos v. Indiana — Opinion of the Court

Petitioner does not assert that he should not have been tried again for reckless homicide. His only claim is that he should not have been tried again for involuntary manslaughter as well as reckless homicide because the jury's silence at his first trial with respect to involuntary manslaughter was legally an acquittal on this charge.
However, the Indiana Supreme Court squarely rejected this interpretation of the first jury's verdict. The court distinguished a long line of Indiana cases which have held that a jury's silence must be deemed an acquittal.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Cichos v. Indiana — Opinion of the Court

The Indiana courts have also recognized that reckless homicide 'is a form of involuntary manslaughter,' Rogers v. State, 227 Ind. 709, 715, 88 N.E.2d 755, 758. Proof of reckless homicide necessarily establishes an unlawful killing that amounts to involuntary manslaughter. Both crimes require proof of the same elements to sustain a conviction under Indiana law.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Cichos v. Indiana — Opinion of the Court

The Indiana statutes define involuntary manslaughter as the killing of 'any human being * * * involuntarily in the commission of some unlawful act.' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10-3405 (1956) . The statutory penalty is two to 21 years' imprisonment. [2] The crime of reckless homicide, created in 1939 as part of Indiana's comprehensive traffic code, is committed by anyone 'who drives a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of others and thereby causes the death of another person.' Ind.Stat.Ann.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature