Case Citator › North Carolina v. Pearce

North Carolina v. Pearce

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
395 U.S. 711
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
758 of 758
Citing cases (total)
7,762
Treatment dates
1972–1989
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. North Carolina v. Pearce is overruled in part: all 758 flagged citations have been read, and the 5 confirmed treatments are listed below. Alabama v. Smith expressly overruled the companion guilty-plea holding in Simpson v. Rice, while leaving Pearce's two-trial rule intact.
More on how this was screened

The Constitution Annotated lists Pearce as overruled by Smith; Smith's opinion specifies this narrower extent. Michigan v. Payne made Pearce's prophylactic rules nonretroactive; Colten v. Kentucky and Chaffin v. Stynchcombe declined to extend them to two-tier trials and jury resentencing; and Texas v. McCullough confined the presumption to circumstances presenting a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

7,762 later cases cite North Carolina v. Pearce; 758 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on North Carolina v. Pearce?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court overruled the companion holding issued with Pearce that presumed vindictiveness when a longer sentence after trial followed an earlier sentence on a guilty plea.

    Alabama v. Smith · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Our conclusion here is not consistent with Simpson v. Rice, the companion case to North Carolina v. Pearce. ... Believing, as we do, that there is no basis for a presumption of vindictiveness where a second sentence imposed after a trial is heavier than a first sentence imposed after a guilty plea, we overrule Simpson v. Rice, supra, to that extent.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Supreme Court held Pearce's prophylactic resentencing rules nonretroactive to proceedings predating Pearce.

    Michigan v. Payne · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    A writ of certiorari was granted in this case ... to decide whether the due process holding of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 723-726 (1969), is to be given retroactive effect. For the reasons that follow, we hold today that this decision is nonretroactive.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Pearce's presumption of vindictiveness to a two-tier system providing a new trial before a different court.

    Colten v. Kentucky · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Our view of the Kentucky two-tier system of administering criminal justice, however, does not lead us to believe ... that the hazard of being penalized for seeking a new trial, which underlay the holding of Pearce, also inheres in the de novo trial arrangement. ... The possibility of vindictiveness, found to exist in Pearce, is not inherent in the Kentucky two-tier system.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Pearce's prophylactic restrictions to a new jury imposing the sentence after retrial.

    Chaffin v. Stynchcombe · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), this Court established limitations on the imposition of higher sentences by judges in similar circumstances. While we reaffirm the underlying rationale of Pearce that vindictiveness against the accused for having successfully overturned his conviction has no place in the resentencing process, whether by judge or jury, we hold today that due process of law does not require extension of Pearce-type restrictions to jury sentencing.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court confined Pearce's presumption to circumstances presenting a realistic risk of vindictiveness and held it inapplicable where different sentencers imposed the two sentences.

    Texas v. McCullough · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The Pearce requirements thus do not apply in every case where a convicted defendant receives a higher sentence on retrial. ... The presumption is also inapplicable because different sentencers assessed the varying sentences that McCullough received. ... Here, the second sentencer provides an on-the-record, wholly logical, nonvindictive reason for the sentence. We read Pearce to require no more.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads North Carolina v. Pearce and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace