Evans v. Michigan - 568 U.S. 313, 133 S. Ct. 1069 (2013)

Rule:

The United States Supreme Court has defined an "acquittal" to encompass any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability for an offense. Thus an “acquittal” includes a ruling by a court that the evidence is insufficient to convict, a factual finding that necessarily establishes a criminal defendant’s lack of criminal culpability, and any other ruling which relates to the ultimate question of guilt or innocence. These sorts of substantive rulings stand apart from procedural rulings that may also terminate a case midtrial, which the Court generally refers to as "dismissals" or "mistrials." Procedural dismissals include rulings on questions that are unrelated to factual guilt or innocence, but which serve other purposes, including a legal judgment that a defendant, although criminally culpable, may not be punished because of some problem like an error with the indictment.

Facts:

After the State of Michigan rested its case at petitioner Evans' arson trial, the court granted Evans' motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, concluding that the State had failed to prove that the burned building was not a dwelling, a fact the court mistakenly believed was an “element” of the statutory offense. The State Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for retrial. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that a directed verdict based on an error of law that did not resolve a factual element of the charged offense was not an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.

Issue:

Does an erroneous acquittal such as this nevertheless constitute an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, which would mean that Evans could not be retried?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The U.S. Supreme Court held that retrial following a court-decreed acquittal was barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, even in cases where a court misconstrued the statute under which a defendant was charged, and the court's order acquitting petitioner, although based on an error of law, prevented the State from retrying the case. In contrast to procedural rulings which resulted in orders dismissing a case or granting a mistrial on a basis that was unrelated to factual guilt or innocence, acquittals were substantive rulings that concluded criminal proceedings and raised significant double jeopardy concerns.