holding Double Jeopardy Clause prevents State from retrying defendant after conviction has been reversed by appellate court on ground that evidence introduced at prior trial was insufficient, as matter of law, to sustain jury's verdict
How later courts described this case
- holding Double Jeopardy Clause prevents State from retrying defendant after conviction has been reversed by appellate court on ground that evidence introduced at prior trial was insufficient, as matter of law, to sustain jury's verdict
- holding double jeopardy clause also bars subsequent retrial of lesser-included offense
- remanding for federal appellate court to determine whether state supreme court reversed the conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence or for trial error
- applying Double Jeopardy Clause in same manner to state convictions that have been overturned on appellate review for evidentiary insufficiency
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Powell,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court except insofar as it states that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is fully applicable to state criminal proceedings. See Crist v. Bretz, post, p. 40 (Powell, J., dissenting). I believe, however, that under our decision today in Burks v. United States, ante, p. 1, a fundamental component of the prohibition against double jeopardy is the right not to be retried once an appellate court has found the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s guilty verdict.