Document: 543 U.S. 462 SMITHv.MASSACHUSETTS. No. 03-8661. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 1, 2004. Decided February 22, 2005. Petitioner was tried before a Massachusetts jury on charges related to shooting, including unlawful possession firearm. At the conclusion prosecution's case, petitioner moved for not-guilty finding firearm count because "the evidence [was] insufficient as matter law sustain conviction," Mass. Rule Crim. Proc. 25(a). The trial judge granted motion, no support requirement that have barrel shorter than 16 inches. prosecution rested, and proceeded other counts. Before closing argument, argued under precedent, victim's testimony defendant shot him with "pistol" or "revolver" sufficed establish length. "reversed" her previous ruling, allowing go jury. convicted all In affirming, Appeals held Double Jeopardy Clause not implicated judge's correction ruling had subjected second proceeding, 25 did prohibit from reconsidering decision. Held: 1. Submitting plainly further "factfinding proceedings going guilt innocence," which are prohibited following midtrial acquittal by court, Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 140, 145. here met definition an consistently used in this Court's double-jeopardy cases. States Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, rejected reasoning identical Commonwealth's claim jeopardy terminate determination legal rather factual. How characterizes is binding Court. Smalis, supra, at 144, n. 5. What matters that, Rules authorize, "evaluated [Commonwealth's] determined it legally conviction." Linen, 572. Pp. 466-469. 2. forbade reconsider later trial. While may permit create procedure insufficiency proof, such time petitioner's Its allowed only clerical errors, those "arising oversight omission," be corrected any time. 42. A few Commonwealth cases provided interlocutory rulings subject reconsideration, but these cases, without more, do extend principle 25, purports end case. seeming dismissal induce present defense undismissed when he would better advised stand silent. cannot become potential snare who reasonably rely it. If, after facially unqualified one count, has defendant's introduction remaining counts, must treated final, unless availability reconsideration been established pre-existing rule case authority expressly applicable sufficiency evidence. 469-475. 58 App. 166, 788 N. E. 2d 977, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C. KENNEDY BREYER, joined, post, p. 475. CERTIORARI TO THE APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS David Nathanson cause briefs petitioner. Cathryn A. Neaves, Assistant Attorney General Massachusetts, respondent. With brief were Thomas F. Reilly, General, Dean Mazzone Joseph M. Ditkoff, Special Attorneys Lieber, General. Sri Srinivasan amicus curiae urging affirmance. Acting Solicitor Clement, Wray, Deputy Dreeben.* JUSTICE SCALIA 1 Midway through trial, acquitted three offenses charged. question presented whether 2 * Melvin Smith Superior Suffolk County, relating shooting his girlfriend's cousin. indictments charged counts: armed assault intent murder; battery means dangerous weapon; "firearm" element last offense requires proof weapon "less inches" See Gen. Laws Ann., ch. § 121 (West 2002) (definition "firearm"); 269, 10(a) 2000). indictment so Petitioner's girlfriend same accessory fact. 3 victim testified "a pistol," specifically revolver" "appeared .32 .38." 12, 14. introduced about 4 required guilty see 25(a) (2002), part proved gun less sidebar, hearing argument prosecutor, there "not scintilla evidence" possessed length 21. court marked motion handwritten endorsement "Filed hearing, Allowed," allowance entered docket. Consolidated Brief Record Appendix Defendant 00-P-1215 (Mass. Ct.), A.21; 3. sidebar conference then concluded, rested.1 notify count. 5 proceeded. codefendant witness, both defendants rested. During short recess arguments, prosecutor brought court's attention precedent (he contended) kind He requested defer until verdict. agreed, announcing orally she "reversing" firearm-possession Id., 75. Corresponding notations made original 6 though charge. submitted bench additional repeat-offender charge; found guilty. received sentence 10 12 years' incarceration charge, concurrent 7 sought review Massachusetts. That affirmed, holding proceeding. It also initial final Criminal Procedure decide made, reserving decision;2 reasoned does preclude reconsidering. 170-171, 982-983 (2003). 8 Judicial denied appellate review. 440 1104, 797 380 We certiorari. 542 903 (2004). II 9 Although common-law protection against double historically applied rendered verdict, see, e. g., Hale, Pleas Crown *246, we long Fifth Amendment prohibits reexamination court-decreed extent Richardson States, 468 317, 325, (1984); Sanabria 437 54, 64, 18 (1978); 573 (1977); Sisson, 399 267, 290 (1970). This comes or, here, Fong Foo 369 141, 143 (1962) (per curiam); Sanabria, 77-78; 565-566, 574-575. Our single exception precludes jury: When returns verdict (or court) sets aside enters judgment acquittal, appeal reinstate Wilson, 420 332, 352-353 (1975). But if yet obtained conviction, secure impermissible: "[S]ubjecting postacquittal factfinding innocence violates Clause." 145 (1986). 11 first Submission acquittal. question, then, was, fact, certainly appeared be. directs enter "if An order entering thus meets our used: "actually represents resolution, correct not, some factual elements charged." 571; accord, Price Vincent, 538 634, 640 (2003); Burks (1978). 13 contends grant purely determination, function being reserved Respondent 14 (citing Lowder, 432 92, 96-97, 731 510, 515 (2000)). Thus, reasons, since neither nor bring end. ends when, discharge hung jury, grants Federal 29. 29 created judge-ordered "judgment acquittal" place directed least fictionally returned direction, coming alone. But, said change nomenclature removal jury's theoretical role make difference; substantive failed carry its burden. even primary factfinder, still resolves granting absence 571-575. true here. (Indeed, patterned adopted prior directed-verdict practice change. 95, 2d, 514.) Massachusetts' characterization is, "as law, ... us," 5; what III 15 Having concluded charge,3 turn more difficult permitted once rested their cases.4 important note, outset, facts gave reason doubt finality state ruling. reserve seek continuance allow provide favorable authority. Rather, asked "any evidence," replied, "No. point, rests case." 22. Nor appear face tentative. 25(a), require forward while right evidence, Cote, 229, 242, 444 1282, 1290-1291 (1983). And suggested given chance reopen proceeded, suggestion motion. 22; supra. 17 Was apparently fact final? think, dispute, Tr. Oral Arg. 5, general prescribe State's can reconsidered. Cf. Pennsylvania Goldhammer, 474 28, 30 (1985) curiam) (state regarding appealability affect expectation purposes). find instance State done statute rule, courts held, common exercise supervisory power, court-directed effective signed docket, Harden State, 160 Ga. 514, 515, 287 329, 331 (1981), formal issued, Collins, 112 Wash. 303, 308-309, 771 P. 350, 353 (1989), Watson 410 So. 207, 209 (Fla. 1982). however, nonfinality. errors order, 42 (2002). cites supporting proposition (rulings pretrial motions, evidentiary rulings, like) reconsideration. far obvious extends entry predecessor, verdict) — face, least, think much 19 suffice announce state-law acquittals tentative where occurred stage justifiable ignorance could possibly caused prejudice.5 presentation possibility prejudice arises. Many jurisdictions follow traditional appeal, sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges reviewed basis entire record, erroneously 509 1391, 1397 (Okla. 1973); Deal 657 404, 405 (Alaska 1983) curiam). generally Comment, Motion Acquittal: Neglected Safeguard, 70 Yale L. J. 1151, 1152-1158 (1961). jurisdictions, puts runs risk will bolster Government enough guilty." McGautha California, 402 183, 215 (1971). "may lay foundation otherwise inadmissible Government's corroboration essential Calderon, 348 160, 164, (1954) (citation omitted). moreover, false assurance defenses counts inadvisable example, entails admission count.6 20 Clause's guarantee upon show existed automatically, presumptively, nonfinal. most shown wrong sufficient point dissent emphasizes, echoing below. 476-477, 479. contention itself (even absent provision State) leave open way correcting odds well-established bar attach preverdict patently law. See, S., 7; 68-69, 75, 78; Foo, 143.7 21 argues every erroneous unremediable, attributable mistaken expression promptly corrected. not. Double-jeopardy principles never thought immediate repair genuine error announcement Friedland, 61 (1969); King Parkin, Mood. 45, 46-47, 168 Eng. Rep. 1179, 1180 (1824). course protect themselves "occasional errors" thinks "inevitabl[e]" 478, rendering (Massachusetts, observed, utterances scrivener's conclusions. (2002).) 22 Prosecutors ill-considered rulings. craft procedural rules judges maximum opportunity consider care pending motion," 574, option deferring consideration D. Super. Ct. 29(b) Y. Law Ann. 290.10(1)(b) 2002); W. Va. (At altogether precluded court. Nev. Rev. Stat. 175.381(1) (2001).) Moreover, persuade rules, move forward. 637-638, 642-643, Indeed, convinced during 15-minute arguments. 71-72, 74. Had resolved satisfactorily went 23 24 reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered. Notes: Andrew H. Schapiro Pamela Harris National Association Defense Lawyers reversal. Briefs amici affirmance Idaho et al. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho, Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Lori Fleming, Jessica Borup, Troy King, Alabama, Gregg Renkes, Alaska, Terry Goddard, Arizona, Jane Brady, Delaware, Mark Bennett, Hawaii, Lisa Madigan, Illinois, Tom Miller, Iowa, Mike McGrath, Montana, Jon Bruning, Nebraska, Brian Sandoval, Nevada, Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire, Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota, Jim Petro, Ohio, Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma, Hardy Myers, Oregon, Gerald Pappert, Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island, Shurtleff, Utah, William Sorrell, Vermont, Jerry Kilgore, Virginia, Thor, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., West Virginia; Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson. Although, ruled, "be requesting [the victim] testify to" length, resting provides pertinent part: "The own shall complaint thereof either side closed conviction If close ruled time." (Emphasis added.) moment continued two charges, remained empaneled. analysis focuses individual "offence" charged, Const., Amdt. continues others. See,e. Georgia, 398 323, 329 emphasizes reconsidered "before ha[d] disassociated issue it," whereas inSmalis 140 (1986), government appealing. Post, 477-478 (opinion J.). distinction relevant one. squarely barred (the factfinder pronounced acquittal) impermissible. Likewise, recognized Justices Boston Municipal Lydon, 466 294 (1984), "two-tier" system amounting "`a single, continuous judicial proceedings,'" two-tier process. 309, 312. These otherwise. misses Swisher 438 204 (1978), master's findings. "recogni[tion of] between appeals continuing tribunal," recognition 216 ("[I]t parties, designate empower adjudicator. Maryland conferred roles Juvenile judge. regardless party initially favored proposals, empowered accept, modify, reject proposals"). quite taking "necessarily signals" appealed, 3-4; establish, necessarily connotes nonfinality differentiates InPrice 634 (2003), habeas presenting similar partial Michigan violation occurred. 637-638. "an unreasonable application law," 28 2254(d)(1), because, "no took respondent laboring impression facing for" purportedly multiple-defendant like one, apparent others alter harmful ways. They would, proceed belief they need longer fear assertion antagonistic own, might assume available witness. CfWashington Texas, 388 14, 22-23 (1967) (discussing reasons purported accomplice accomplice's acquittal). effect codefendants bearing claim, confirm wisdom adopt. goes great lengths deprived defense. Seepost, 476-480. beyond very exposure jeopardy. To put differently: Requiring someone defend charge already per se purposes sufficient. 77-78 Of clear dissent's due-process acknowledge rendered, eventually (after 472). bars seeking "another supply muster" terminated. 26 whom CHIEF JUSTICE, KENNEDY, BREYER join, dissenting. 27 Does acquit fewer indictment? unanimously answers "No." ante, 470 ("[A]s reconsidered."). recognizes, legislation decision, power. 470-471. According decisional 171, 983 Haskell, 790, 792, 784 625, 628 (2003) ("A power decisions pendency firmly rooted ...."). view hardly novel. LoRusso, 695 53 (CA2 1982) district inherent modify orders ...."); cf. Fed. Civ. 54(b) (Absent "entry claims parties," form however designated, adjudicates rights liabilities parties action decision revision adjudicating parties."). Nevertheless, locked into on-the-spot error, maintains, [had not] evidence." Ante, 473. Otherwise, according "[t]he [would] it." Ibid. I agree unfolds, accorded timely, fully informed meet charges. hold jeopardy, due Gray Netherland, 518 152, 171 (1996) (GINSBURG, dissenting) ("Basic process criminal full, fair, potentially charges."). On App., 983, defendant-petitioner suffered fairly error. Smith's acted impatiently mistake Cutting prosecutor's objections, 20-22, "required guilty" contained indictment, firearm, id., 20.1 She ground prove crime, i. e., possessing 2000) (rendering "firearm," exempted, unlawful); (defining inches"). endorsed recorded communicated 31 day made. advance arguments 71-74. retracted called directly Sperrazza, 372 667, 363 673 (1977). highest infer inches revolver handgun. 670, 675. Here, testimony. saw hand ".32 .38" caliber "pistol." 12. new based Sperrazza 32 urges controls disagree. acquit, reversal lead remand proceedings. 146. moves forum, signals appealed issues. hand, occurs Trial revisited earlier noted, 475-476, practical exigencies mean inevitably commit occasional errors. contrast, traditionally pursue prodefense Scott, 82, 84-86 (1978) evolution appeal). tribunal rendition adjudication. Compare 54(b), quoted 204, 215-216 (no exceptions findings accused juvenile "is proceeding begins culminates adjudication judge"), Kepner 195 100, 133 (1904) (Double higher "court instance"). 33 (2002) dispositive states: "If instructs says nothing 34 incorrect capacity 25(a)'s demand reservation question,2 said, "protects insist crime decides rest introduce proof." (quoting 240, 1289 (1983)).3 granted, 983. import indicated. Because seated break retained counter case,4 froze pretend comprehend did. 35 sum, unbroken air deny prosecutors circumstances, temporary full fair murder, (providing challenge verdict). Several federal model. Alaska (2004); Del. Iowa 2.19(8)(b) N.Y. 290.10(1) Counsel oral real, "what [judges] simply motion]." 56 (also noting renewed hypothesizes chargesAnte, 472. addressed prospect concretely: "has affected strategy regard charges." Further, slightest codefendant, "alter[ed] [her case] ways." 472, 6.

Category: 0