Opinion ID: 2460096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Order of Dismissal or Judgment of Acquittal?

Text: The distinction between an order of dismissal and a judgment of acquittal is critical to our resolution of this appeal. While K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1) grants the State the right to appeal an order dismissing a complaint, information, or indictment, the State does not have the right to appeal a judgment of acquittal. E.g., State v. Crozier, 225 Kan. 120, 122, 587 P.2d 331 (1978); State v. Gustin, 212 Kan. 475, 480, 510 P.2d 1290 (1973). This court explained in Gustin that this rule arose because [a]ppellate review of the decision after acquittal would constitute double jeopardy. ( Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 49 L.Ed. 114, 24 S.Ct. 797 [1904].) Gustin, 212 Kan. at 480, 510 P.2d 1290. This prohibition derives from the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides in relevant part: [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. U.S. Const. amend. V. [T]he `controlling constitutional principle' underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is the prohibition[] against multiple trials. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 569, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 346, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 [1975]); see Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 10 (No person shall be a witness against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.). Although these principles make it clear that the State cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal that implicates the Double Jeopardy Clause, the distinction between a judgment of acquittal or of dismissal is often not easily determined. State v. Beerbower, 262 Kan. 248, 252, 936 P.2d 248 (1997). As we examine our prior case law for guidance on how to make the distinction, one point has been repeatedly stated: It does not matter how a party or a district court labels a motion or order; that characterization does not control. See State v. Whorton, 225 Kan. 251, 254, 589 P.2d 610 (1979) (citing United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 95-96, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 [1978]; Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349; Wilson, 420 U.S. at 336, 95 S.Ct. 1013; United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 478 n. 7, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 [1971]); Beerbower, 262 Kan. at 252-53, 936 P.2d 248. Hence, our ruling cannot be based on Roberts' request for a dismissal or on the district court's reference to the ruling as an order of dismissal. Rather, as we will discuss, the applicable statutes and cases define an acquittal that cannot be appealed by the State as a judgment that (1) resolves a factual element (2) after jeopardy has attached.