We do not believe the strong showing required to invoke the protection against double jeopardy has been made. The second trial against defendant appropriately went forward without infringement on defendant's right against being twice placed in jeopardy. Defendant next argues that a series of acts constituting prosecutorial misconduct was committed by the State, denying him a fair trial. The State initially responds that defendant's failure to raise these arguments at trial constitutes waiver. Defendant concedes his failure to adequately preserve the arguments, but urges this court to consider them because they amount to plain error.
Plain error bypasses the waiver rule.
While plain error will be found in either instance, we find that both situations exist in the instant case. First, the evidence was closely balanced. The conviction rested primarily on the identification of defendant by the victim, which was supplemented by police testimony regarding the underlying investigation. She further described this disassociation as having the effect of making her lose time. No physical evidence linking defendant to the crime was introduced.