Smith v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
601 A.2d 1080 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a conviction is reversed for insufficiency of the evidence under the specific legal theory presented to the jury, the Double Jeopardy Clause requires a judgment of acquittal and bars retrial, even if the evidence could have supported a conviction under an alternative legal theory that was not instructed to the jury.

Facts:

Joseph A. Smith and an unidentified accomplice entered the Eastern Market grocery store to commit a robbery.
The accomplice pointed a gun at the cashier, Ui Suk Chu.
Smith knocked a customer, Ronald Ziegel, to the floor, after which the accomplice pointed the gun at Ziegel.
When another person, Myong Chu, entered from the back of the store, the accomplice turned and pointed the gun at her.
While the accomplice held Myong Chu and Ziegel at gunpoint, Smith took money from the cash register.
The accomplice then told Smith to leave, and both men fled the store.

Procedural Posture:

Joseph A. Smith was charged in the Superior Court (trial court) with armed robbery and two counts of assault while armed.
A jury found Smith guilty on all counts.
The trial court sentenced Smith to consecutive prison terms for each conviction.
Smith (appellant) appealed the two assault convictions to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), arguing the evidence was insufficient. The United States was the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an acquittal required under the Double Jeopardy Clause when the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction under the specific legal theory instructed to the jury, even if the evidence could have supported an alternative, uninstructed theory?

Opinions:

Majority - Newman, Senior Judge

Yes. An acquittal is required. A conviction cannot be affirmed on appeal based on a legal theory that was never presented to the jury. In this jurisdiction, there are two types of assault: attempted-battery assault and intent-to-frighten assault. The trial judge's instructions to the jury only described attempted-battery assault. The government conceded that the evidence, which consisted of the accomplice pointing a gun, was only sufficient to prove intent-to-frighten assault. This case is factually and legally indistinguishable from the court's prior decision in McGee v. United States, which held that a failure to instruct the jury on the correct theory of assault bars an affirmation of the conviction on that theory. Under the principle of stare decisis, the court is bound by McGee. Therefore, because the evidence was insufficient to support the only theory of assault the jury was permitted to consider, the convictions must be reversed and a judgment of acquittal entered, as mandated by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that a criminal conviction must rest on the specific legal and factual theory presented to the jury. It prevents appellate courts from salvaging a conviction by substituting a new legal theory that the prosecution failed to advance at trial. The ruling underscores the critical importance of accurate jury instructions that align with the evidence. It also reinforces the strength of the Double Jeopardy Clause, confirming that a reversal for evidentiary insufficiency—even if caused by an erroneous jury instruction—is treated as an acquittal, thereby barring any retrial on the charge.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Smith v. United States (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature