Smith v. Massachusetts
543 U.S. 462, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 1398, 160 L. Ed. 2d 914 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a trial judge from reconsidering a mid-trial acquittal based on evidentiary insufficiency after the defendant has begun to present their case, unless a pre-existing state law or rule clearly establishes that such a ruling is not final.
Facts:
- Melvin Smith was charged with three offenses related to the shooting of his girlfriend's cousin: armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery, and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Under Massachusetts law, an essential element of the unlawful firearm possession charge was proof that the weapon's barrel was less than 16 inches long.
- At trial, the victim testified that Smith shot him with a 'pistol' or 'revolver' that appeared to be a '.32 or a .38.'
- The prosecution presented no other evidence regarding the firearm or its barrel length before resting its case.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Smith was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
- At the close of the prosecution's case, Smith moved for a required finding of not guilty on the firearm possession count due to insufficient evidence of barrel length.
- The trial judge granted the motion orally, which was then endorsed on the motion and entered on the court docket.
- After the defense rested, but before closing arguments, the prosecutor presented a legal precedent to the judge.
- The judge then announced she was 'reversing' her earlier ruling and allowed the firearm count to go to the jury.
- The jury convicted Smith on all three counts.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, which affirmed the conviction, holding the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied further appellate review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
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 of the Fifth Amendment forbid a trial judge from reconsidering a mid-trial ruling of acquittal on one count of a multi-count indictment after the trial has proceeded to the defendant's presentation of evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a judge from reconsidering a mid-trial acquittal once proceedings have moved forward. A judge's ruling that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, equivalent to a jury verdict. Subjecting the defendant to further fact-finding proceedings on that count after such a ruling violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. If, after a facially unqualified midtrial dismissal of one count, the trial has proceeded to the defendant's introduction of evidence, the acquittal must be treated as final unless the availability of reconsideration was plainly established by pre-existing state law, which was not the case here. The finality of an acquittal holds even if the judge's ruling was based on a clear error of law.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a trial judge from correcting an erroneous mid-trial acquittal ruling during the same, continuous proceeding, before the case is submitted to the jury. A trial court has the inherent power to reconsider its own interlocutory decisions, and this correction was not an appeal to a higher court but a revision within the court of first instance. The defendant suffered no prejudice, as the judge corrected her mistake on the same day it was made, before closing arguments, and the defendant did not detrimentally alter his trial strategy. This situation should be analyzed under a due process framework for fairness, not the rigid bar of double jeopardy, as the defendant was subjected to only a single, unbroken trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the finality of a mid-trial acquittal, equating a judge's determination of evidentiary insufficiency with a jury's not-guilty verdict for double jeopardy purposes. It establishes a clear default rule: such acquittals are final once the trial moves on, placing the burden on states to enact specific statutes or rules if they wish to allow for reconsideration. The ruling strongly protects a defendant's reliance on a court's acquittal and prevents the potential for prejudice that could arise if a defendant alters their defense strategy based on a seemingly final dismissal of a charge. It limits a prosecutor's ability to correct a failure of proof by persuading a judge to reverse an acquittal, even if the reversal happens quickly and is based on a clear legal error.
