Opinion ID: 1995126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Court of Appeals Misapplied the Lockhart Standard.

Text: Because we conclude that McCulloch's conviction should be affirmed, we need not consider whether a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, we take this opportunity to comment on the Court of Appeals' resolution of the Double Jeopardy issue. After the Court of Appeals determined in McCulloch II that McCulloch's conviction should be reversed because of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court of Appeals considered whether the cause should be remanded for a new trial or whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial. In considering the Double Jeopardy issue, the Court of Appeals cited Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988), for the proposition that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid retrial so long as the sum of the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court, whether erroneously or not, would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. McCulloch II, 15 Neb.App. at 622, 733 N.W.2d at 591 (emphasis in original). The Court of Appeals read Lockhart to provide that only evidence offered by the State should be considered in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeals determined that although there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction in the present case if all the evidence, including evidence presented by the defense, was considered, there was not sufficient evidence if only the evidence presented by the State was considered. Based on its reading of Lockhart, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the State from retrying McCulloch. As discussed below, because a proper Lockhart analysis considers all the evidence admitted at trial, not just that offered by the State, the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, although understandable, was flawed. We acknowledge that in a line of cases beginning with State v. Anderson, 258 Neb. 627, 605 N.W.2d 124 (2000), this court has sometimes stated, referring to Lockhart, that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid a retrial so long as the sum of the evidence offered by the State and admitted by a trial court, whether erroneously or not, would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. We also note that in the introductory paragraph of Lockhart, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, where the evidence offered by the State and admitted by the trial courtwhether erroneously or notwould have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial. 488 U.S. at 34, 109 S.Ct. 285. However, a reading of the entire Lockhart opinion indicates that the Court did not intend to limit Double Jeopardy analysis to a consideration of only the evidence offered by the State. In Lockhart, the Court stated that a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court in deciding whether retrial is permissible under the Double Jeopardy Clause. 488 U.S. at 41, 109 S.Ct. 285. The Court analogized the Double Jeopardy analysis to consideration of a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and noted that a trial court in passing on such a motion considers all of the evidence it has admitted, and to make the analogy complete it must be this same quantum of evidence that is considered by the reviewing court. 488 U.S. at 41-42, 109 S.Ct. 285. Although the specific issue in Lockhart was whether erroneously admitted evidence should be considered and not whether evidence presented by the defense should be considered, a correct reading of Lockhart indicates that all evidence admitted by the trial court, including evidence offered by the defense, should be considered in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to permit retrial. This reading is consistent with the reading of Lockhart this court made in State v. Palmer, 257 Neb. 702, 600 N.W.2d 756 (1999), wherein we stated that in our evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all of the evidence admitted at the trial to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We have referred to evidence offered by the State and admitted by the court in Anderson, supra, and in other cases including State v. Morrow, 273 Neb. 592, 731 N.W.2d 558 (2007), State v. Floyd, 272 Neb. 898, 725 N.W.2d 817 (2007), State v. Barfield, 272 Neb. 502, 723 N.W.2d 303 (2006), State v. Beeder, 270 Neb. 799, 707 N.W.2d 790 (2006), State v. Allen, 269 Neb. 69, 690 N.W.2d 582 (2005), State v. Faust, 265 Neb. 845, 660 N.W.2d 844 (2003), State v. Haltom, 263 Neb. 767, 642 N.W.2d 807 (2002), and State v. Sheets, 260 Neb. 325, 618 N.W.2d 117 (2000). To the extent such cases may be read as limiting Double Jeopardy consideration to only evidence offered by the State, they are disapproved. Instead, the proper standard is as follows: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid a retrial so long as the sum of all the evidence admitted by a trial court, whether erroneously or not, would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.