The Fifth Amendment in the bill of rights has a provision which bars a person subject to an   offence to be charged twice on the same offence.

In referring to Smith (2007) argument, Armington is right that he cannot be charged again as it will be putting him in double jeopardy. Smith (2007) argues with the case, Grady v. Corbin 1990, HELD: the defendant cannot be charged on the same offence as it will violate the double jeopardy clause.

Facts: In 1987, Corbin while driving under the influence on New York highway collided with two oncoming vehicles. The driver of the second vehicle died in the accident while her husband sustained serious injuries. Corbin pleaded guilty for driving under the influence on that particular day. The court ruled that to charge him now for homicide would be double jeopardy (Smith, 2007).

In another view, the drugstore clerk has the right to sue Armington for damages since his first charges were criminal and her charges are civil. Bodenhamer & Ely (2008) argue that each offence requires proof of a different element. If the same act violates two distinct provisions, it should be determined by additional facts whether the plaintiff is guilty of two offenses or just one.

However, Armington cannot argue his case with Smith (2007) arguments on the Corbin & Grady, 1990 case since what happened was inevitable and of the same account. In Armington’s case, the accused committed the two accounts of armed robbery, assault and battery and also assaulting the plaintiff. This can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff willingly committed the two charges leveled against him.