Opinion ID: 2570343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counts III, V, VI

Text: [¶ 8] In Sarr II we held that a defendant is not subjected to double jeopardy if he is retried after his conviction is reversed for trial error. This holds true even where, leaving out of consideration erroneously admitted evidence, the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. The test has been described in these terms: The double jeopardy clause does not prohibit a retrial when a review of all of the evidence presented at trial, including the improperly admitted evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Sarr II, ¶ 8. This case is unusual in the sense that the only evidence so far presented to sustain these three convictions is the evidence that we now hold to be inadmissible. Nonetheless, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Lockhart, and our holding in Sarr II, Sarr may be retried on these counts. Thus, we reverse Sarr's convictions on Counts III, V, and VI, and they are remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.