Lockhart v. Nelson
488 U.S. 33 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of a defendant when a conviction is reversed due to the erroneous admission of evidence, even if the remaining, properly admitted evidence would be insufficient to sustain the verdict. The sufficiency of the evidence for double jeopardy purposes is determined by including all evidence the trial court admitted, whether it was admitted correctly or not.
Facts:
- Johnny Lee Nelson pleaded guilty in Arkansas state court to burglary and misdemeanor theft.
- During a separate sentencing hearing, the State sought to enhance his sentence under a habitual offender statute, which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of four prior felony convictions.
- The State introduced certified copies of four prior felony convictions, which was sufficient under the statute.
- Unbeknownst to the prosecutor or defense counsel at the time, one of the four convictions had been pardoned by the Governor several years prior.
- During cross-examination, Nelson stated his belief that one conviction had been pardoned.
- The prosecutor suggested Nelson was confusing a pardon with a commutation, and under questioning from the judge, Nelson agreed it had been a commutation, so the issue was dropped.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in an Arkansas state court found that the State had proven four prior convictions and imposed an enhanced sentence on Johnny Lee Nelson.
- The state appellate courts upheld the enhanced sentence on both direct appeal and collateral review.
- Nelson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
- The District Court found that one conviction had been pardoned, declared the enhanced sentence invalid, and ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the State from resentencing Nelson as a habitual offender.
- The State appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The State (represented by Lockhart, the prison director) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 a state from retrying a defendant for sentence enhancement after a reviewing court finds that the sentence was based on erroneously admitted evidence, and the remaining legally sufficient evidence was insufficient to sustain the enhancement?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial where a conviction is set aside because of trial error, such as the incorrect receipt of evidence. A reversal for trial error is fundamentally different from a reversal for evidentiary insufficiency. When a reviewing court overturns a conviction based on the erroneous admission of evidence, it implies a defect in the judicial process, not that the government failed to prove its case. For double jeopardy purposes, the sufficiency of the evidence is assessed based on the evidence the jury actually heard, including the erroneously admitted portion. In this case, the jury had certified copies of four convictions, which was sufficient to support the verdict, so retrial is permissible to allow for a fair readjudication free from the initial error.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The retrial is squarely foreclosed by Burks v. United States, which held that a state may not retry a defendant when it failed to present sufficient evidence of guilt. Under Arkansas law, a pardoned conviction is a legal nullity with no probative value. Therefore, the evidence presented by the state was insufficient from the very beginning, as one of the four required convictions legally did not exist for enhancement purposes. This is a case of evidentiary insufficiency, not mere trial error, because the state's proof was defective from the outset. Allowing the state a second attempt to prove the four convictions lets it hone its strategy and perfect its evidence, which is the exact harm the Double Jeopardy Clause is meant to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between a reversal for trial error and a reversal for evidentiary insufficiency under the Double Jeopardy Clause. By holding that sufficiency is determined by including erroneously admitted evidence, the Court limits the scope of the rule from Burks v. United States, which barred retrial after a finding of insufficient evidence. The ruling ensures that procedural mistakes by a trial court do not inadvertently grant a defendant immunity from further prosecution. This strengthens the state's interest in punishing the guilty by allowing for a 'do-over' to correct the trial process, rather than treating the situation as a definitive failure of the prosecution's case.
