Document: 450 U.S. 40 101 S.Ct. 970 67 L.Ed.2d 30 Tracy Lee HUDSON, Petitioner,v.State of LOUISIANA. No. 79-5688. Argued Dec. 1, 1980. Decided Feb. 24, 1981. Syllabus Held : Louisiana violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by prosecuting petitioner a second time for first-degree murder after judge at first trial granted petitioner's motion new on ground that evidence was legally insufficient to support jury's guilty verdict. This case is controlled Burks v. United States, 437 98 2141, 57 1 (decided before Supreme Court affirmed conviction trial), which held "the precludes once reviewing court has found insufficient" Id., 18, S.Ct., 2150. not be read as holding double jeopardy protections are only when prosecution adduced no all crime or an element thereof. The record does State's contention because, "13th juror," he entertained personal doubts about verdict and would have decided it differently from other 12 jurors. shows instead because State had failed prove its matter law. Pp. 42-45. La., 373 So.2d 1294, reversed. Richard O. Burst, Sr., Guthrie, Okl., petitioner. James M. Bullers, Bossier City, respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. question in this whether Clause, we expounded (1978), guilty. 2 * Petitioner Hudson tried state murder, jury him then moved trial, under law means challenging sufficiency against him.1 motion, stating: "I heard same did[;] I'm convinced there evidence, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, sustain homicide committed defendant particular victim." denied application writ certiorari. Hudson, 344 (1977). 3 At presented eyewitness whose testimony trial. also conviction. 361 858 (1978). 4 sought habeas corpus court, contending barred trying time. relied our decision Burks2 U.S., 2150.3 writ, affirmed. 1294 (1979). bar if evidence—whether appellate determines Because believed verdict, although some concluded precluded Clause. 5 We certiorari, 445 960, 100 1645, 64 235 (1980), now reverse. II 6 considered "whether accused may subjected prior reversed solely lack sufficient verdict." 2, 2142. reversal "due failure proof trial," where received "fair opportunity offer whatever could assemble," bars retrial charge. 16, 2149. makes "no difference rather than determined insufficient." 11, 2147 (emphasis original), "a one his remedies, even sole remedy." 17, 7 Our controls case, clear ground. In hearing counsel argued contrary evidence." After put jurors, agreed with "that verdict"; commented: "[H]ow they act weapon produced, anyone who saw blow struck, Court's comprehension." recognized insufficient. described judge's these words: "[T]he herein ordered pursuant LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 851(1) . ." So.2d, 1298 original). precisely circumstance retrials. See Greene Massey, 19, 24-26, 2151, 2154-55, 15 (1978); id., 27, 2155 (POWELL, J., concurring). Nothing suggests, seemed believe, 8 contends control case. As reads record, According State, he, therefore though verdict.4 reasons preclude such trial." 9 statements make clear. law, merely jurors.5 Accordingly, significant facts distinguish Burks,6 III 10 judgment 11 It so ordered. Louisiana's Code Criminal Procedure authorize judges enter judgments acquittal trials. La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 778 (West Supp.1980); Henderson, 362 1358, 1367 (La.1978). criminal defendant's 851 1967 Supp.1980), provides pertinent part: "The Court, defendant, shall grant whenever: "(1) evidence; "(2) court's ruling written objection made during proceedings, prejudicial error; "(3) New material that, notwithstanding exercise diligence discovered available, been introduced probably changed guilty; "(4) discovered, since guilty, error defect proceedings judgment; "(5) ends justice served granting entitled strict legal right." think acted paragraph (1) infra, 43. entered affirming involved federal prosecution, but 2154, principle fully applies States. Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707 (1969); Crist Bretz, 28, 2156, 24 here adopts reasoning Tate's concurring Tate wrote: "[The judge] did reason produced guilt, himself (to satisfy doubts—not jury's, otherwise) guilt doubt. Commendably conscientiously, present instance gave chance produce enough convict accused. If so, majority notes, re-trial offends constitutional jeopardy." Whether assess juror" Compare People Noga, 196 Colo. 478, 480, 586 P.2d 1002, 1003 Bowle, 318 407, 408 (Fla.App.1975), Veitch Superior Cal.App.3d 722, 730-731, 152 Cal.Rptr. 822, 827 (1979); Ramos, 33 App.Div.2d 344, 347, 308 N.Y.S.2d 195, 197-198 (1970). suggests allows jurors." do decide retrying capacity, us. note, however, despite fair so. Supra, By definition, acting Thus, nothing find judge, verdict: "While involves review level, deem principles applicable both." 1297. contest conclusion.

Category: 0