Opinion ID: 1142795
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ruling on merits

Text: We think it would clearly be double jeopardy to bring appellant to trial a second time on these charges. [7] Hudson v. Louisiana, supra , is squarely in point on its facts. There a defendant was put through an entire trial, found guilty, and then granted a new trial on the basis of insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Court held that the prohibition of double jeopardy bars retrial in that circumstance. It is hard to imagine a clearer violation of the policy served by the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against double jeopardy than the facts of this case. As the Supreme Court said in the passage quoted earlier from Burks v. United States (same facts as Hudson except new trial granted on appeal instead of by trial court), a new trial in this circumstance would amount to affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding. The State cites § 77-35-24(a) to demonstrate that the trial court may grant a new trial on the motion of either party or on its own initiative for any error or impropriety which had a substantial adverse effect upon the rights of a party. But the power conferred by that section does not override the constitutional right not to be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. The double jeopardy clause stands as a major qualification of the power to grant a new trial in a criminal case (except, of course, where the motion is made by the defense). Here, the new trial did come in response to appellant's own motion (in the alternative), and the State relies on that fact to contend that appellant has no double jeopardy defense against a retrial in this case. We reaffirm the general rule that a defendant who obtains a new trial on the basis of errors in the trial or guilty plea that lead to his conviction can be retried without double jeopardy. State v. Jaramillo, supra ; Cobb v. Snow, 14 Utah 2d 170, 380 P.2d 457 (1963); State v. Lawrence, 120 Utah 323, 331-32, 234 P.2d 600, 604 (1951); State v. Kessler, supra . But that principle does not apply to the error of convicting a defendant on insufficient evidence. If the defendant could not challenge that error without forfeiting his right to assert the bar of double jeopardy on a retrial, the protection of that clause would be rendered nugatory. As the Supreme Court held in Burks v. United States , it makes no difference that a defendant has sought a new trial as one of his remedies, or even as the sole remedy. It cannot be meaningfully said that a person `waives' his right to a judgment of acquittal by moving for a new trial. 437 U.S. at 17, 98 S.Ct. at 2150. The State further argues that the variance between the March 5 date in the information and the March 22 date in the witnesses' testimony was (1) minor and (2) unimportant because time was not an element of the crime. We disagree with both points. First, the seventeen-day disparity between charge and evidence in this case was not minor and surely exceeds the one- to three-day tolerance we have recognized in the approximation of on or about. [8] Second, on the facts of this case, the disparity in dates was important. The statement in the cases relied on by the State that time is not an essential element of the crime, State v. Wilson, Utah, 642 P.2d 394, 395 (1982); United States v. Davis, 436 F.2d 679, 682 (10th Cir.1971), means no more than that the charged offense would be criminal on either date in question. That is, on the facts of those cases there was no defense such as a period of limitations or a change in the age of defendant or victim that would keep the act from being criminal or punishable on one date but not on the other. In contrast, time is always an essential element of a crime in the sense that due process requires that an accused be given sufficiently precise notification of the date of the alleged crime that he can prepare his defense. Neither the Wilson nor the Davis case involved any deficiency in notice. There, the prosecutors recognized typographical errors in the charging documents prior to the trials and gave defendants prompt notice of the true dates of the alleged offenses. When each case went to trial, both prosecution and defense knew the date of the alleged offense, and there was no suggestion on either appeal that the evidence had deviated from that date. This case is distinguishable. Here, the error was in the evidence (a material difference between the trial testimony and the date charged in the information), the error occurred during the trial, and the error took the defendant entirely by surprise. Because the error was in the evidence, this case presents the spectacle of a prosecutor's allowing a jury to commence its deliberations on the basis of sworn testimony the prosecutor knows to be false. Cf. Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 78 S.Ct. 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 9 (1957); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed. 214 (1942). True, the prosecutor admitted in rebuttal that the testimony about the date of the offense was in error and should have been March 5, but what was the jury supposed to do with that admission? The prosecutor's attempt to change the witnesses' testimony from March 22 to March 5 was not under oath. On the record, the jury had no evidence tying the defendant to a theft committed on or about March 5, as charged in the information and the judge's instructions. And what about the defense? It had no need to introduce evidence as to a March 5 theft, since no such theft was proved at trial. On the other hand, if the prosecutor's rebuttal could be taken as changing the witnesses' sworn testimony from March 22 to March 5, the defense was denied an opportunity to respond to the amended evidence. For all these reasons, we have no doubt that a judgment of conviction on this evidence would have been reversed for insufficient evidence if it had been appealed. In that event, we would have ordered that the charges be dismissed and that the defendant be discharged from custody under them. State v. Petree, Utah, 659 P.2d 443, 447 (1983); State v. Lakey, Utah, 659 P.2d 1061, 1064 (1983). Cf. § 77-35-23 (no order of commitment after arrest of judgment where jeopardy has attached). After the jury found him guilty but before he was sentenced, appellant filed a motion seeking a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, arrest of judgment or a new trial. The district court's granting of a new trial and appellant's failure to appeal the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal set the stage for the procedural complications that have bedeviled this case. The correct result could still have been achieved by granting this petition for a writ of habeas corpus or by granting one of appellant's subsequent motions to dismiss. The motions to dismiss are not before us on this appeal, but the habeas corpus petition is. We can assure that appellant will not be placed in double jeopardy by reversing the order denying the writ of habeas corpus and by remanding the case with instructions to discharge appellant from custody under these or substitute charges. That will be the order of this Court.