Entering Judgment on the Murder in the Second Degree would not be an adequate remedy in that the defendant has no priors and would therefore be subject to jury sentencing. The defendant would be entitled to a new trial on Murder in the Second degree charge so that the jury could consider the full range of punishment. A verdict of not guilty, whether rendered by a jury or directed by the trial judge, absolutely shields the defendant from retrial. This is the only authority cited by the state in opposition to defendant's argument. It merely contends, as a question of fact, that Judge Forder did not sustain the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case.
Defendant relies on additional authorities.
The parties have cited no authority, which would support the conclusion that the oral announcement and the written notation sustaining the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case was subject to reconsideration. There is no indication of how the parties could proceed without some ruling on the motion and the court did not overrule the motion before the defendant's evidence. We recognize that the state would have no standing to contend that the trial court erred. Inherent in a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's evidence is that by definition it must be decided before further proceedings. In fact, the trial court had a legal obligation to rule such a motion and did rule on the motion.