Evans v. Michigan
568 U.S. 313, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1614, 185 L. Ed. 2d 124 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mid-trial directed verdict of acquittal based on a trial court's erroneous determination that the prosecution failed to prove an element of the offense is an acquittal for Double Jeopardy purposes and bars retrial, even if the supposed 'element' is not actually a part of the crime.
Facts:
- The State of Michigan charged Lamar Evans with burning "other real property" under a specific state statute.
- At trial, the State's evidence indicated that Evans had burned down an unoccupied house.
- At the close of the State's case, Evans's attorney moved for a directed verdict of acquittal.
- The attorney argued, based on incorrect Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, that an essential element of the crime was proof that the burned structure was not a dwelling house.
- The testimony at trial had established that the building burned was, in fact, a dwelling house.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Michigan prosecuted Lamar Evans in a state trial court for the crime of burning 'other real property'.
- At the close of the prosecution's case, the trial court granted Evans's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the acquittal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that double jeopardy did not bar retrial, and remanded the case.
- Evans, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
- The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed the intermediate appellate court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial of a defendant when a trial court grants a mid-trial directed verdict of acquittal based on its erroneous belief that the prosecution failed to prove an element that is not actually an element of the charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
Yes, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial. An acquittal for double jeopardy purposes encompasses any ruling by the court that the evidence is insufficient to convict, regardless of whether that ruling is based on an 'egregiously erroneous foundation.' The Court finds no meaningful constitutional distinction between an acquittal based on a misconstruction of a real statutory element and one based on the erroneous addition of a non-existent element. The touchstone is whether the ruling is substantive—relating to the ultimate question of guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented—as opposed to a procedural dismissal. Because the trial court evaluated the State's evidence and found it legally insufficient to sustain a conviction, its ruling was a substantive acquittal on the merits that absolutely bars reprosecution.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
No, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial. An acquittal has been consistently defined as a ruling that resolves, correctly or not, one or more of the factual elements of the offense charged. In this case, the trial court did not resolve any actual element of the crime of burning 'other real property.' Instead, the judge invented a non-existent element and then concluded the prosecution failed to prove it. Such a ruling is unrelated to the defendant's factual guilt or innocence of the actual offense and therefore should not be considered an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. The State should be afforded one fair opportunity to prove its case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against retrial following a judicial acquittal. It clarifies that the finality of an acquittal is absolute, even when predicated on a fundamental and obvious legal error concerning the elements of the charged offense. By rejecting the distinction between misinterpreting an element and inventing one, the Court prioritizes the substance of the ruling (an evaluation of evidentiary sufficiency) over the correctness of the legal framework, thereby preventing appellate courts from reviewing such acquittals. This reinforces the principle that the government is not entitled to a second opportunity to convict simply because the first trial was terminated due to a judge's legal mistake.
