evans
michigan
argued
november
decided
february
state
michigan
rested
case
petitioner
evans
arson
trial
granted
evans
motion
directed
verdict
acquittal
concluding
state
failed
prove
burned
building
dwelling
fact
mistakenly
believed
element
statutory
offense
state
appeals
reversed
remanded
retrial
affirming
state
held
directed
verdict
based
error
law
resolve
factual
element
charged
offense
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
held
double
jeopardy
clause
bars
retrial
evans
offense
pp
retrial
following
acquittal
barred
even
acquittal
based
upon
egregiously
erroneous
foundation
fong
foo
erroneous
decision
exclude
evidence
sanabria
mistaken
understanding
evidence
suffice
sustain
conviction
smith
massachusetts
misconstruction
statute
defining
requirements
convict
arizona
rumsey
relevant
acquittal
encompasses
ruling
prosecution
proof
insufficient
establish
criminal
liability
offense
see
scott
burks
contrast
procedural
rulings
lead
dismissals
mistrials
basis
unrelated
factual
guilt
innocence
acquittals
substantive
rulings
conclude
proceedings
absolutely
thus
raise
significant
double
jeopardy
concerns
scott
trial
clearly
evaluated
state
evidence
determined
legally
insufficient
sustain
conviction
martin
linen
supply
evans
acquittal
product
erroneous
interpretation
governing
legal
principles
error
affects
accuracy
determination
acquit
essential
character
see
scott
pp
state
attempted
distinguish
cases
ground
involved
sufficiency
factual
elements
charged
offense
evans
case
concerned
error
law
unrelated
guilt
innocence
perceives
difference
case
like
previous
ones
involves
antecedent
legal
error
led
acquittal
state
failed
prove
fact
actually
required
prove
state
claim
actual
element
offense
resolved
acquittal
offense
evans
verdict
based
something
concededly
element
argument
reads
martin
linen
narrowly
inconsistent
decisions
since
martin
linen
focused
significance
district
acquittal
based
nonculpability
determination
result
depend
defining
elements
offense
culpability
touchstone
whether
particular
elements
resolved
whether
nonculpability
determination
legally
correct
scott
pp
additional
arguments
state
raise
support
lower
distinction
unpersuasive
state
claims
unless
actual
element
offense
resolved
trial
way
know
whether
ruling
acquittal
rely
upon
label
wrongly
allow
form
trial
action
control
however
instant
decision
turns
form
trial
action
whether
action
serves
substantive
procedural
purposes
state
argue
grounds
acquittal
untethered
actual
elements
offense
trial
issue
unreviewable
order
finding
insufficient
evidence
convict
reason
presumes
courts
exercise
duties
good
faith
state
also
suggests
evans
heard
complain
error
induced
corrected
state
wishes
retry
midtrial
acquittals
result
defense
motions
claims
lee
evans
required
ask
resolve
whether
nondwelling
status
element
offense
jeopardy
attached
however
lee
involved
midtrial
dismissal
akin
mistrial
case
involves
ruling
sufficiency
state
proof
pp
declines
revisit
decisions
fong
foo
smith
rumsey
smalis
pennsylvania
reason
believe
existing
rules
become
unworkable
justify
overruling
precedent
payne
tennessee
logic
cases
still
holds
objection
rule
denies
prosecution
full
fair
opportunity
present
evidence
jury
defendant
reaps
windfall
trial
unreviewable
error
sovereigns
power
prevent
situations
disallowing
practice
midtrial
acquittals
encouraging
courts
defer
consideration
motion
acquit
jury
renders
verdict
providing
mandatory
continuances
expedited
interlocutory
appeals
pp
reversed
sotomayor
delivered
opinion
roberts
scalia
kennedy
thomas
ginsburg
breyer
kagan
joined
alito
filed
dissenting
opinion
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
lamar
evans
petitioner
michigan
writ
certiorari
michigan
february
justice
sotomayor
delivered
opinion
state
michigan
rested
case
petitioner
lamar
evans
arson
trial
entered
directed
verdict
acquittal
based
upon
view
state
provided
sufficient
evidence
particular
element
offense
turns
unproven
element
actually
required
element
must
decide
whether
erroneous
acquittal
nevertheless
constitutes
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
mean
evans
retried
previously
held
judicial
acquittal
premised
upon
misconstruction
criminal
statute
acquittal
merits
bars
retrial
arizona
rumsey
seeing
meaningful
constitutional
distinction
trial
misconstruction
statute
erroneous
addition
statutory
element
hold
midtrial
acquittal
circumstances
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
well
state
charged
evans
burning
real
property
violation
comp
laws
state
evidence
trial
suggested
evans
burned
unoccupied
house
close
state
case
however
evans
moved
directed
verdict
acquittal
pointed
applicable
michigan
criminal
jury
instructions
listed
fourth
element
offense
building
dwelling
house
crim
jury
instr
supp
commentary
instructions
emphasized
essential
element
structure
burned
dwelling
house
evans
argued
comp
laws
criminalizes
arson
requires
structure
burned
dwelling
provision
charged
covers
real
persuaded
trial
granted
motion
explained
homeowner
dwelling
house
nondwelling
requirement
met
ibid
state
appeal
michigan
appeals
reversed
remanded
app
evans
conceded
held
controlling
precedent
burning
real
property
lesser
included
offense
michigan
law
disproving
greater
offense
required
citing
people
antonelli
app
rehearing
thus
explained
undisputed
trial
misperceived
elements
offense
evans
charged
erred
directing
verdict
mich
rejected
evans
argument
double
jeopardy
clause
barred
retrial
divided
decision
michigan
affirmed
held
trial
grants
defendant
motion
directed
verdict
basis
error
law
resolve
factual
element
charged
offense
trial
ruling
constitute
acquittal
purposes
double
jeopardy
retrial
therefore
barred
granted
certiorari
resolve
disagreement
among
state
federal
courts
question
whether
retrial
barred
trial
grants
acquittal
prosecution
failed
prove
element
offense
actuality
reverse
ii
answering
question
write
clean
slate
quite
opposite
half
century
since
first
recognized
double
jeopardy
clause
bars
retrial
following
acquittal
even
acquittal
based
upon
egregiously
erroneous
foundation
fong
foo
per
curiam
mistaken
acquittal
acquittal
nonetheless
long
held
verdict
acquittal
reviewed
error
otherwise
without
putting
defendant
twice
jeopardy
thereby
violating
constitution
ball
cases
applied
fong
foo
principle
broadly
acquittal
unreviewable
whether
judge
directs
jury
return
verdict
acquittal
fong
foo
forgoes
formality
entering
judgment
acquittal
see
smith
massachusetts
collecting
cases
acquittal
precludes
retrial
even
premised
upon
erroneous
decision
exclude
evidence
sanabria
mistaken
understanding
evidence
suffice
sustain
conviction
smith
misconstruction
statute
defining
requirements
convict
rumsey
cf
smalis
pennsylvania
circumstances
fact
acquittal
may
result
erroneous
evidentiary
rulings
erroneous
interpretations
governing
legal
principles
affects
accuracy
determination
alter
essential
character
scott
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
relevant
cases
defined
acquittal
encompass
ruling
prosecution
proof
insufficient
establish
criminal
liability
offense
see
burks
martin
linen
supply
thus
acquittal
includes
ruling
evidence
insufficient
convict
factual
finding
necessarily
establish
es
criminal
defendant
lack
criminal
culpability
rulin
relate
ultimate
question
guilt
innocence
scott
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
sorts
substantive
rulings
stand
apart
procedural
rulings
may
also
terminate
case
midtrial
generally
refer
dismissals
mistrials
procedural
dismissals
include
rulings
questions
unrelated
factual
guilt
innocence
serve
purposes
including
legal
judgment
defendant
although
criminally
culpable
may
punished
problem
like
error
indictment
procedural
dismissals
substantive
rulings
result
early
end
trial
explained
scott
double
jeopardy
consequences
differ
law
attaches
particular
significance
acquittal
ruling
concludes
proceedings
absolutely
permit
second
trial
acquittal
however
mistaken
acquittal
may
present
unacceptably
high
risk
government
vastly
superior
resources
might
wear
defendant
though
innocent
may
found
guilty
ibid
quoting
green
retrial
following
acquittal
upset
defendant
expectation
repose
subject
additional
embarrassment
expense
ordeal
compelling
live
continuing
state
anxiety
insecurity
contrast
termination
proceedings
defendant
basis
unrelated
factual
guilt
innocence
offense
accused
procedural
ground
pose
concerns
expectation
finality
attaches
properly
granted
mistrial
plain
trial
evaluated
state
evidence
determined
legally
insufficient
sustain
conviction
martin
linen
trial
granted
evans
motion
rule
requires
direct
verdict
acquittal
charged
offense
evidence
insufficient
support
conviction
rule
crim
proc
oral
ruling
leaves
doubt
made
determination
basis
state
presented
ruling
dismissal
procedural
ground
unrelated
factual
guilt
innocence
like
question
preindictment
delay
scott
rather
determination
state
failed
prove
case
precedents
evans
acquitted
question
trial
ruling
wrong
predicated
upon
clear
misunderstanding
facts
state
needed
prove
state
law
moment
martin
linen
sanabria
rumsey
smalis
smith
instruct
acquittal
due
insufficient
evidence
precludes
retrial
whether
evaluation
evidence
correct
martin
linen
regardless
whether
decision
flowed
incorrect
antecedent
ruling
law
evans
acquittal
product
erroneous
interpretatio
governing
legal
principles
cases
error
affects
accuracy
determination
acquit
essential
character
scott
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
saw
things
differently
identified
constitutionally
meaningful
difference
case
previous
decisions
cases
found
involve
evidentiary
errors
regarding
proof
needed
establish
factual
element
crimes
issue
still
ultimately
involved
resolution
regarding
sufficiency
factual
elements
charged
offense
mistakenly
identifie
extraneous
element
dismisse
case
solely
basis
however
resolve
even
address
ed
factual
element
necessary
establish
offense
result
reasoned
case
terminates
based
error
law
unrelated
defendant
guilt
innocence
charged
offense
thus
falls
outside
definition
acquittal
fail
perceive
difference
case
like
previous
ones
involves
antecedent
legal
error
led
acquittal
state
failed
prove
fact
actually
required
prove
consider
rumsey
trial
sitting
sentencer
capital
case
involving
murder
committed
robbery
mistakenly
held
arizona
statutory
aggravating
factor
describing
killings
pecuniary
gain
limited
murders
hire
accordingly
found
state
failed
prove
killing
pecuniary
gain
sentenced
defendant
life
imprisonment
state
successfully
appealed
obtained
death
sentence
remand
held
retrial
penalty
phase
question
double
jeopardy
relevant
difference
situation
one
rumsey
trial
error
called
misinterpretation
misconstruction
statute
whereas
error
designated
erroneous
addition
extraneous
element
charged
offense
emphasized
labels
control
analysis
context
rather
substance
decision
see
smalis
scott
martin
linen
error
rumsey
easily
characterized
erroneous
addition
element
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
homicide
conversely
error
viewed
misinterpretation
statute
phrase
building
real
property
exclude
far
fine
distinction
meaningful
reject
notion
defendant
constitutional
rights
turn
happenstance
appellate
chooses
describe
trial
error
echoing
michigan
state
well
dissent
emphasize
martin
linen
description
acquittal
resolution
correct
factual
elements
offense
charged
emphasis
added
see
brief
respondent
see
brief
amicus
curiae
hereinafter
brief
see
post
observe
double
jeopardy
clause
protects
twice
placed
jeopardy
offence
amdt
cl
note
offense
comprises
constituent
parts
called
elements
facts
must
proved
sustain
conviction
see
dixon
consequently
argue
actual
element
offense
resolved
said
acquittal
offense
charged
offense
turn
something
concededly
element
offense
brief
evans
trial
ended
without
resolution
even
one
actual
element
conclude
acquittal
argument
reads
martin
linen
narrowly
inconsistent
decisions
since
focus
martin
linen
significance
judicial
acquittal
fed
rule
crim
proc
district
case
evaluated
government
evidence
determined
legally
insufficient
sustain
determination
nonculpability
enough
make
acquittal
akin
jury
verdict
holding
depend
upon
defining
elements
offense
explained
supra
scott
confirms
relevant
distinction
judicial
determinations
go
criminal
defendant
lack
criminal
culpability
hold
defendant
although
criminally
culpable
may
punished
supposed
procedural
error
culpability
ultimate
question
guilt
innocence
touchstone
whether
particular
elements
resolved
whether
determination
nonculpability
legally
correct
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
perhaps
inconsistent
state
argument
burks
held
defendant
raises
insanity
defense
decides
government
ha
failed
come
forward
sufficient
proof
defendant
capacity
responsible
criminal
acts
defendant
acquitted
decided
criminal
culpability
ha
established
lack
insanity
element
burks
offense
bank
robbery
use
dangerous
weapon
see
rather
insanity
affirmative
defense
criminal
liability
conclusion
thus
depended
upon
equating
judicial
acquittal
order
finding
insufficient
evidence
culpability
insufficient
evidence
particular
element
end
case
follows
come
trial
judgment
acquittal
resolved
question
evans
guilt
innocence
matter
sufficiency
evidence
unrelated
procedural
grounds
judgment
however
erroneous
precludes
reprosecution
charge
barred
state
appeal
well
sanabria
iii
state
supported
offers
three
reasons
distinction
drawn
maintained
none
persuades
us
start
state
argues
unless
actual
element
offense
resolved
trial
way
know
whether
ruling
acquittal
rely
upon
label
used
wrongly
allow
form
trial
action
control
brief
respondent
disagree
decision
turns
form
trial
action
rather
whether
serve
substantive
purposes
procedural
ones
scott
trial
announce
midtrial
defendant
shall
acquitted
prejudiced
preindictment
delay
double
jeopardy
clause
pose
barrier
reprosecution
notwithstanding
acquittal
label
cf
scott
know
trial
acquitted
evans
incanted
word
acquit
acted
view
prosecution
failed
prove
case
next
state
fear
grounds
acquittal
untethered
actual
elements
offense
trial
issue
unreviewable
order
finding
insufficient
evidence
convict
reason
prosecution
failed
prove
structure
burned
blue
brief
respondent
brief
concern
limit
magnitude
error
yield
acquittal
response
long
held
much
see
supra
concern
instead
holding
make
easier
courts
insulate
review
acquittals
granted
form
nullification
see
brief
respondent
reject
premise
presume
contexts
courts
exercise
duties
good
faith
cf
harrington
richter
slip
finally
state
suggests
evans
induced
trial
error
heard
complain
error
corrected
state
wishes
retry
brief
respondent
cf
recognized
judgments
acquittal
result
defense
motions
hold
defendant
waives
double
jeopardy
protection
whenever
trial
error
favor
midtrial
motion
leads
acquittal
undercut
adversary
assumption
system
criminal
justice
rests
vitiate
one
fundamental
rights
established
fifth
amendment
sanabria
citation
omitted
true
defendant
persuades
declare
mistrial
jeopardy
continues
retrial
generally
allowed
see
dinitz
circumstances
defendant
consents
disposition
contemplates
reprosecution
whereas
defendant
moves
acquittal
see
sanabria
makes
related
argument
contends
evans
asked
resolve
whether
nondwelling
status
element
offense
jeopardy
attached
elected
wait
trial
underway
raise
point
claim
double
jeopardy
violation
brief
government
relies
upon
lee
district
dismissed
indictment
midtrial
failed
allege
required
intent
element
offense
held
retrial
corrected
indictment
barred
dismissal
akin
mistrial
acquittal
clear
district
separately
denied
defendant
motion
judgment
acquittal
explaining
defendant
proven
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
world
acknowledging
error
indictment
required
dismissal
defendant
invited
interrupt
proceedings
formalizing
finding
merits
raising
indictment
issue
late
held
principles
governing
defendant
consent
mistrial
apply
citing
dinitz
government
suggests
situation
functionally
similar
identifying
elements
offense
necessary
step
determining
sufficiency
charging
document
brief
ignore
fact
trial
actually
rule
sufficiency
state
proof
sufficiency
information
filed
lee
demonstrates
two
need
rise
fall
together
even
government
correct
evans
challenged
charging
document
legal
theory
used
challenge
sufficiency
evidence
matters
made
latter
motion
motion
necessarily
may
made
trial
underway
evans
penalized
requesting
ruling
merits
state
case
michigan
rules
entitled
whether
also
brought
distinct
procedural
objection
earlier
beside
point
alternative
state
ask
us
reconsider
past
decisions
brief
respondent
suggesting
overruling
cases
since
least
fong
foo
brief
suggesting
overruling
smith
rumsey
smalis
declined
revisit
cases
made
similar
request
smalis
see
brief
amicus
curiae
smalis
pennsylvania
pp
decline
first
reason
believe
existing
rules
become
unworkable
justify
overruling
precedent
payne
tennessee
distinction
drawn
scott
stood
test
time
expect
courts
continue
little
difficulty
distinguishing
rulings
relate
ultimate
question
guilt
innocence
serve
purposes
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
dionisio
collecting
cases
lafave
israel
king
kerr
criminal
procedure
ed
second
logic
cases
still
holds
question
jury
verdict
acquittal
precludes
retrial
thus
bars
appeal
legal
error
may
led
acquittal
see
ball
trial
instructed
jury
must
find
burned
structure
dwelling
order
convict
jury
acquitted
evans
accordingly
jury
presumed
follow
instructions
blueford
arkansas
slip
quoting
weeks
angelone
end
matter
premise
fong
foo
holding
follows
trial
instead
exercises
discretion
direct
jury
return
verdict
acquittal
jeopardy
also
terminates
notwithstanding
legal
error
jury
returns
acquittal
martin
linen
conclusion
unavoidable
make
difference
whether
employs
formality
directing
jury
return
acquittal
whether
enters
acquittal
sanabria
rumsey
smalis
smith
merely
apply
fong
foo
martin
linen
tandem
trial
makes
antecedent
legal
error
fong
foo
grants
judgment
acquittal
rather
directing
jury
acquit
martin
linen
result
acquittal
words
way
antecedent
legal
errors
reviewable
context
judicial
acquittals
unless
errors
also
reviewable
give
rise
jury
acquittals
contrary
settled
understanding
jury
verdict
acquittal
unreviewable
unless
distinguish
juries
acquit
pursuant
instructions
judicial
acquittals
notwithstanding
purely
formal
distinction
neither
option
become
attractive
time
therefore
reiterate
contention
double
jeopardy
clause
must
leave
open
way
correcting
legal
errors
odds
rule
bar
attach
preverdict
acquittal
patently
wrong
law
smith
finally
state
object
rule
denies
prosecution
full
fair
opportunity
present
evidence
jury
defendant
reaps
windfall
trial
unreviewable
error
brief
respondent
brief
sovereigns
hardly
powerless
prevent
sort
situation
observed
smith
nothing
obligates
jurisdiction
afford
trial
courts
power
grant
midtrial
acquittal
least
two
disallow
practice
see
rev
stat
state
parfait
la
app
cir
many
jurisdictions
including
federal
system
allow
encourage
courts
defer
consideration
motion
acquit
jury
returns
verdict
mitigates
double
jeopardy
see
fed
rule
crim
proc
cases
trial
interpretation
relevant
criminal
statute
likely
prove
dispositive
see
reason
jurisdictions
provide
mandatory
continuances
expedited
interlocutory
appeals
wished
prevent
misguided
acquittals
chosen
vest
courts
power
grant
midtrial
acquittals
state
must
bear
corresponding
risk
acquittals
granted
error
hold
evans
trial
ended
acquittal
trial
ruled
state
failed
produce
sufficient
evidence
guilt
double
jeopardy
clause
thus
bars
retrial
offense
barred
state
appeal
judgment
michigan
reversed
alito
dissenting
lamar
evans
petitioner
michigan
writ
certiorari
michigan
february
justice
alito
dissenting
holds
double
jeopardy
clause
bars
petitioner
retrial
arson
attorney
managed
convince
judge
terminate
petitioner
first
trial
prior
verdict
specious
ground
offense
charged
contains
imaginary
element
prosecution
prove
decision
makes
sense
consistent
original
meaning
double
jeopardy
clause
serve
purposes
prohibition
double
jeopardy
contrary
reasoning
trial
judge
ruling
acquittal
cases
consistently
defined
decision
represents
resolution
correct
factual
elements
offense
charged
smith
massachusetts
quoting
martin
linen
supply
emphasis
added
good
reason
deprives
state
michigan
right
one
fair
opportunity
convict
petitioner
therefore
respectfully
dissent
detroit
police
officers
heard
explosion
burning
house
observed
petitioner
running
away
building
gasoline
officers
pursued
ultimately
apprehended
petitioner
admitted
burned
house
one
living
house
time
fire
house
question
dwelling
house
petitioner
charged
comp
laws
burning
dwelling
offense
punishable
imprisonment
years
petitioner
instead
charged
urning
real
property
violation
comp
laws
offense
carries
maximum
penalty
years
imprisonment
applies
ny
person
wilfully
maliciously
burns
building
real
property
specified
crime
lesser
included
offense
crime
burning
dwelling
house
necessary
elements
prove
either
offense
except
prove
greater
offense
must
shown
building
dwelling
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
prove
lesser
offense
however
necessary
prove
building
dwelling
emphasis
added
close
prosecution
case
petitioner
attorney
moved
directed
verdict
ground
prosecution
required
prove
element
charged
offense
building
dwelling
prosecution
failed
prove
burned
building
dwelling
house
prosecutor
responded
arguing
nothing
charged
offense
requires
proof
building
dwelling
prosecutor
requested
moment
pull
statute
consult
supervisors
trial
judge
denied
prosecutor
requests
erroneously
concluded
prosecution
required
prove
burned
building
dwelling
determining
state
proved
nonexistent
element
trial
judge
granted
petitioner
motion
directed
verdict
entered
order
labeled
cquittal
app
pet
cert
trial
judge
ruling
plainly
wrong
appeal
defense
counsel
even
attempt
defend
correctness
conceding
judge
wrongly
added
extraneous
element
statute
client
charged
see
also
app
michigan
appeals
agreed
concession
went
hold
trial
judge
ruling
constitute
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
ruling
represent
resolution
defendant
favor
factual
element
necessary
criminal
conviction
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
michigan
affirmed
holding
trial
judge
erroneously
adds
extra
element
charged
offense
subsequently
determines
prosecution
prove
extra
element
trial
judge
decision
based
defendant
guilt
innocence
elements
charged
offense
accordingly
michigan
concluded
judge
ruling
case
constitute
acquittal
purposes
double
jeopardy
retrial
barred
ii
reverses
decision
state
holding
supported
neither
original
understanding
prohibition
double
jeopardy
reasons
prohibition
prohibition
double
jeopardy
origin
three
pleas
autrefois
acquit
autrefois
convict
pardon
prevented
retrial
person
previously
acquitted
convicted
pardoned
offense
scott
see
crist
bretz
previously
explained
protection
double
jeopardy
historically
applied
charges
jury
rendered
verdict
smith
emphasis
added
result
original
understanding
clause
hardly
matter
dispute
scott
supra
compel
conclusion
defendant
acquitted
double
jeopardy
purposes
whenever
judge
issues
preverdict
ruling
prosecution
failed
prove
nonexistent
element
charged
offense
although
decisions
expanded
double
jeopardy
protection
beyond
origins
see
smith
supra
acknowledging
expansion
protection
double
jeopardy
crist
supra
nonetheless
count
significant
result
reaches
today
finds
support
relevant
analogues
lie
core
area
protected
double
jeopardy
clause
see
scott
given
far
departed
principles
applied
time
founding
least
ensure
decisions
area
serve
underlying
purposes
constitutional
prohibition
double
jeopardy
see
yet
today
decision
fails
advance
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
double
jeopardy
clause
largely
based
deeply
ingrained
principle
state
resources
power
allowed
make
repeated
attempts
convict
individual
alleged
offense
thereby
subjecting
embarrassment
expense
ordeal
compelling
live
continuing
state
anxiety
insecurity
well
enhancing
possibility
even
though
innocent
may
found
guilty
yeager
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
see
also
blueford
arkansas
slip
martin
linen
allowing
retrial
circumstances
present
case
result
abuse
prosecution
afforded
second
opportunity
persuade
factfinder
evidence
satisfies
actual
elements
offense
instead
trial
judge
ruling
first
trial
based
actual
element
charged
offense
retrial
simply
give
prosecution
one
fair
opportunity
prove
case
allowing
retrial
case
permit
prosecutors
make
repeated
attempts
convict
individual
alleged
offense
yeager
supra
petitioner
prosecutor
sought
terminate
trial
prior
verdict
thus
contrary
unexplained
suggestion
see
ante
case
hardly
presents
specter
state
relentlessly
pursuing
defendant
either
found
guilty
least
insisted
issue
guilt
submitted
first
trier
fact
sattazahn
pennsylvania
quoting
scott
supra
contrary
case
defense
counsel
fooled
judge
committing
error
provided
client
undeserved
benefit
termination
trial
defense
obviously
want
run
completion
double
jeopardy
clause
require
defense
receive
even
greater
benefit
protection
provided
acquittal
repeatedly
emphasized
double
jeopardy
cases
state
interest
receiving
one
complete
opportunity
convict
violated
laws
sattazahn
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
scott
supra
today
decision
deprives
state
michigan
valuable
right
decision
also
flies
face
established
understanding
meaning
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
double
jeopardy
clause
provides
person
shall
subject
offence
twice
put
jeopardy
life
limb
amdt
emphasis
added
thus
analysis
focuses
individual
charged
smith
determine
constitutes
individual
charged
homes
elements
offense
see
dixon
multiple
punishment
multiple
prosecution
contexts
concluded
two
offenses
defendant
punished
tried
survive
test
double
jeopardy
bar
applies
consistent
constitutional
text
focus
offence
thus
elements
defendant
charged
cases
consistently
defined
acquittal
decision
represents
resolution
correct
factual
elements
offense
charged
smith
supra
quoting
martin
linen
supra
see
also
scott
supra
defendant
acquitted
ruling
judge
whatever
label
actually
represents
resolution
defendant
favor
correct
factual
elements
offense
charged
internal
quotation
marks
brackets
omitted
today
effectively
abandons
definition
acquittal
indeed
face
repeated
holdings
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
requires
resolution
correct
factual
elements
offense
charged
smith
supra
martin
linen
supra
see
also
scott
supra
declares
touchstone
whether
particular
elements
resolved
ante
emphasis
added
instead
proclaims
dispositive
question
whether
midtrial
termination
represented
procedural
dismissa
substantive
rulin
ante
reformulation
double
jeopardy
law
faithful
precedents
double
jeopardy
clause
key
question
whether
ruling
procedural
substantive
whatever
terms
mean
context
whether
ruling
relates
defendant
factual
guilt
innocence
respect
offence
see
amdt
thus
elements
charged
see
scott
supra
judge
evaluates
evidence
determines
prosecution
proved
facts
legally
sufficient
satisfy
actual
elements
charged
offense
ruling
however
labeled
represents
acquittal
founded
defendant
factual
innocence
see
martin
linen
judge
manufactures
additional
element
offense
holds
insufficient
evidence
prove
extra
element
judge
resolved
defendant
factual
guilt
innocence
actual
elements
thus
ruling
matter
judge
calls
acquit
defendant
offense
charged
acquittal
occurs
criminal
trial
terminated
basis
unrelated
factual
guilt
innocence
offense
defendant
accused
scott
case
defendant
deliberately
choosing
seek
termination
proceedings
basis
unrelated
factual
guilt
innocence
offense
accused
suffers
injury
cognizable
double
jeopardy
clause
government
permitted
appeal
ruling
trial
favor
defendant
reasoning
case
defendant
neither
acquitted
convicted
successfully
undertook
persuade
trial
submit
issue
guilt
innocence
jury
empaneled
try
iii
contrary
opinion
decision
case
supported
prior
precedent
three
principal
cases
relies
smalis
pennsylvania
smith
arizona
rumsey
trial
judges
ruled
prosecution
failed
introduce
sufficient
evidence
prove
one
actual
elements
offenses
question
none
cases
none
double
jeopardy
cases
trial
judge
terminate
prosecution
verdict
based
element
judge
creation
first
two
cases
smalis
smith
involved
garden
variety
preverdict
acquittals
rulings
based
ground
prosecution
failed
introduce
sufficient
evidence
prove
one
actual
elements
offense
using
conventional
modern
terminology
rule
federal
rules
criminal
procedure
explicitly
labels
rulings
acquittal
smalis
judge
close
prosecution
case
chief
granted
demurrer
respect
certain
charges
ground
evidence
regarding
charges
legally
insufficient
support
conviction
state
held
ruling
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
based
legal
determination
evidence
sufficient
rather
factual
finding
rejected
distinction
see
also
sanabria
smith
involved
similar
situation
one
elements
firearms
offense
defendant
charged
required
proof
gun
barrel
inches
length
trial
judge
dismissed
charge
verdict
ground
prosecution
introduced
sufficient
evidence
establish
undisputed
element
remaining
charges
submitted
jury
however
judge
reversed
ruling
allowed
charge
go
jury
held
however
judge
prior
ruling
constituted
acquittal
therefore
barred
defendant
conviction
offense
thus
smalis
smith
involved
rulings
different
one
issue
earlier
cases
trial
judges
held
evidence
insufficient
prove
undisputed
elements
offenses
question
neither
case
judge
invent
new
element
final
case
rumsey
differs
smalis
smith
one
particular
like
smalis
smith
rumsey
involved
ruling
prosecution
evidence
insufficient
prove
element
rumsey
ruling
predicated
misconstruction
element
case
defendant
found
guilty
murder
trial
judge
jury
conducted
separate
sentencing
hearing
determined
aggravating
circumstances
present
particular
judge
found
prosecution
proved
murder
committed
consideration
receipt
expectation
receipt
anything
pecuniary
value
quoting
rev
stat
ann
supp
judge
reached
conclusion
incorrect
view
aggravating
circumstance
limited
contract
killings
holding
judge
ruling
constituted
acquittal
merits
question
whether
death
sentence
appropriate
noted
ruling
rested
misconstruction
statute
defining
pecuniary
gain
aggravating
circumstance
accordingly
ruling
based
determination
insufficient
evidence
prove
real
element
based
judicial
invention
extra
element
reason
support
nonsensical
result
reaches
today
may
feel
compelled
reach
result
thinks
unworkable
draw
distinction
preverdict
termination
based
trial
judge
misconstruction
element
offense
preverdict
termination
based
judge
perception
statute
contains
element
actually
nonexistent
practical
concern
overblown
may
cases
determination
presents
problems
surely
many
cases
determination
quite
easy
present
case
perfect
example
real
dispute
trial
judge
ruling
based
nonexistent
statutory
element
noted
defense
counsel
conceded
appeal
judge
wrongly
added
extraneous
element
statute
client
charged
another
good
example
provided
state
korsen
idaho
magistrate
erroneously
concluded
offense
criminal
trespass
idaho
law
requires
showing
defendant
something
justify
property
owner
request
defendant
leave
premises
question
magistrate
korsen
effectively
created
additional
statutory
element
concluding
prosecution
presented
insufficient
evidence
purported
element
see
ibid
holding
double
jeopardy
bar
retrial
magistrate
finding
actually
determine
defendant
favor
essential
elements
crime
trespass
cases
said
trial
judge
simply
misinterpret
real
element
offense
instead
invented
entirely
new
nonexistent
element
cases
judge
error
particularly
egregious
permitting
retrial
egregious
cases
especially
appropriate
hold
double
jeopardy
protection
triggered
judge
erroneous
preverdict
ruling
creates
element
thin
air
holds
element
satisfied
therefore
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
comp
laws
burning
dwelling
house
provides
person
wilfully
maliciously
burns
dwelling
house
either
occupied
unoccupied
contents
thereof
whether
owned
another
building
within
curtilage
dwelling
house
contents
thereof
shall
guilty
felony
punishable
imprisonment
state
prison
years
burning
real
property
provides
person
wilfully
maliciously
burns
building
real
property
contents
thereof
specified
next
preceding
section
chapter
property
another
shall
guilty
felony
punishable
imprisonment
state
prison
years
words
pattern
jury
instructions
incorrect
state
later
revised
see
app
compare
case
state
korsen
idaho
conclusion
maker
carter
state
ark
rejecting
distinction
state
lynch
holding
double
jeopardy
barred
retrial
trial
erroneously
required
extra
element
bullington
missouri
capital
defendant
acquitted
death
penalty
end
separate
sentencing
proceeding
factfinder
concludes
prosecution
failed
prove
required
additional
facts
support
sentence
death
thus
rumsey
trial
initial
judgment
based
findings
sufficient
establish
legal
entitlement
life
sentence
amounts
acquittal
merits
bars
retrial
appropriateness
death
penalty
indeed
possible
trial
thought
articulating
additional
element
statute
criminalizes
burning
building
real
property
specified
previous
section
criminalizes
burning
dwelling
house
comp
laws
light
statute
phrasing
trial
interpreted
building
real
property
exclusive
type
property
described
although
michigan
courts
explained
term
actually
meant
inclusive
trial
decision
viewed
given
statutory
building
element
unduly
narrow
construction
limiting
nondwellings
trial
rumsey
gave
provision
unduly
narrow
construction
limiting
contract
killings
nevertheless
accept
parties
michigan
courts
alternative
characterization
trial
error
addition
extraneous
element
observation
simply
underscores
malleable
distinction
adopted
michigan
defended
state
belies
dissent
suggestion
post
opinion
alito
drawing
distinction
quite
easy
basis
trial
ruling
subject
real
dispute
account
burks
posits
used
brief
offense
encompass
legally
recognized
defenses
negate
culpability
brief
dissent
hold
used
opinion
offense
include
legally
recognized
affirmative
defenses
negate
culpability
post
rather
adopt
novel
definition
word
element
mean
elements
affirmative
defenses
promptly
limit
novel
definition
circumstances
prefer
read
burks
says
issue
whether
question
criminal
culpability
resolved
dissent
says
defense
counsel
fooled
judge
post
surely
charge
fair
nothing
suggests
counsel
exceeded
permissible
bounds
zealous
advocacy
behalf
client
counsel
presented
colorable
legal
argument
marshaled
persuasive
authority
michigan
criminal
jury
instructions
time
supported
position
see
supra
dissent
true
gripe
may
cases
well
rather
result
explained
follows
inevitably
see
post
noting
far
cases
departed
principles
applied
time
founding
compare
post
permitting
retrial
egregious
cases
especially
appropriate
fong
foo
per
curiam
according
finality
even
acquittals
based
upon
egregiously
erroneous
foundation
grants
motion
acquit
jury
convicted
double
jeopardy
barrier
appeal
government
acquittal
reversal
result
reinstatement
jury
verdict
guilt
new
trial
wilson
prosecutor
twice
asked
recess
review
michigan
statutes
discuss
question
supervisor
trial
refusal
matter
state
procedure
address
bear
double
jeopardy
consequences
acquittal
followed
footnotes
see
also
crist
fifth
amendment
guarantee
double
jeopardy
derived
english
common
law
followed
relatively
simple
rule
defendant
put
jeopardy
conviction
acquittal
complete
trial
clear
early
years
national
history
constitutional
guarantee
double
jeopardy
considered
equally
limited
scope
story
commentaries
constitution
meaning
double
jeopardy
clause
party
shall
tried
second
time
offence
convicted
acquitted
offence
charged
verdict
jury
judgment
passed
thereon
mean
shall
tried
offence
second
time
jury
discharged
without
giving
verdict
emphasis
added
hale
pleas
crown
must
acquittal
upon
trial
either
verdict
battle
culpability
offense
negated
proof
affirmative
defense
held
ruling
prosecution
submit
sufficient
evidence
rebut
affirmative
defense
constitutes
acquittal
double
jeopardy
purposes
see
burks
scott
thus
used
opinion
elements
offense
include
legally
recognized
affirmative
defenses
negate
culpability