Opinion ID: 1748186
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: retrial of the june 12 second-degree escape charge barred by double jeopardy.

Text: Generally, the double jeopardy clause does not bar retrial after reversal of a criminal conviction. [23] But retrial is barred if an appellate court has found there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. [24] In the case at hand, although Cohron has couched his argument only in terms of stating that the trial court erred by failing to instruct on third-degree escape, the actual crux of his argument centers around the fact that the Commonwealth failed to offer proof to the jury that Cohron had been charged with felony offenses at the time of the June 12 escape. [25] As discussed above, we agree with Cohron that the Commonwealth did fail to present the proof necessary to convict Cohron of second-degree escape. Because we have reversed Cohron's second-degree escape conviction for a lack of evidence to support that conviction, retrial on that charge would constitute impermissible double jeopardy. We recognize that the Commonwealth could have presented evidence that Cohron had been charged with felonies at the time of the June 12 escape. But the focus is upon the evidence that was presented and not upon the evidence that could have been presented. On remand, Cohron may only be tried for third-degree escape, not second-degree escape. [26]