Document: 476 U.S. 140 106 S.Ct. 1745 90 L.Ed.2d 116 Despina SMALIS and Ernest Smalis, Petitioners,v.PENNSYLVANIA. No. 85-227. Argued April 2, 1986. Decided May 5, Syllabus Petitioners, husband wife, who owned a building housing restaurant apartments, were charged with various crimes in connection fire the that resulted killing of two tenants. At close prosecution's case chief at their bench trial Pennsylvania state court, petitioners challenged sufficiency evidence by filing demurrer pursuant to Rule Criminal Procedure. The court sustained demurrer, Superior Court quashed Commonwealth's appeal on ground it was barred Double Jeopardy Clause. Supreme reversed, holding granting is not functional equivalent an acquittal that, for purposes considering plea double jeopardy, defendant demurs "elects seek dismissal grounds unrelated his factual guilt or innocence." Held: judge's petitioners' under Clause, because reversal would have led further proceedings. Whether jury or, as here, bench, subjecting postacquittal factfinding proceedings going innocence violates Pp. 144-146. 507 Pa. 344, 490 A.2d 394 (1985), reversed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Norma Chase, petitioners. Robert L. Eberhardt, Pittsburgh, Pa., respondent. Andrew Frey, Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae, special leave Justice WHITE 1 chief, dismissed certain charges against presented legally insufficient support conviction. question whether Clause bars prosecution from appealing this ruling. 2 * some apartments burned suspicious circumstances, Petitioners fire, including criminal homicide, reckless endangerment, causing catastrophe.1 They opted trial, Procedure 1124(a)(1).2 murder, voluntary manslaughter, catastrophe, stating: 3 "As trier fact law, satisfied, after all facts together reasonable inferences which tended prove, there sufficient could be concluded either defendants guilty beyond doubt setting set question." App. Pet. Cert. 101a-102a. 4 Commonwealth sought review ruling Pennsylvania, but panel appeal, granted en banc affirmed. 331 Pa.Super. 307, 480 1046 (1984). Citing number our decisions controlling authority, out relevant principles law. First, judgment sustain verdict constitutes See, e.g., United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 97 1349, 51 642 (1977); Burks States, 437 1, 98 2141, 57 (1978); Sanabria 54, 2170, 43 Scott, 82, 91, 2187, 2193, 65 (1978) (dicta); Hudson Louisiana, 450 40, 101 970, 67 30 (1981). Second, when enters such judgment, only might result second also if translate into devoted resolution issues elements offense charged. court's necessitate proceedings, improper Linen. 5 appealed Zoller, (1985).3 relied heavily statement supra, defendant's favor "only 'the judge, whatever its label, actually represents [in favor], correct not, charged.' " Id., 97, S.Ct., 2197 (quoting Linen, 571, 1354). gave following explanation why within definition acquittal: 6 "In deciding grant does determine evidence, determines credited jury, warrant conclusion doubt. . 7 "Hence, definition, determination. [T]he before judge remains purely one 8 "We conclude, therefore, acquittal, has right order sustaining case-in-chief. In situation, himself elects 357-358, A.2d, 401. 9 Accordingly, remanded determination merits appeal. We certiorari, 474 944, 88 285 now reverse.4 II 10 erred 358, What demurring seeks matter law State's establish guilt.5 Our past decisions, we are inclined reconsider time, hold supra; supra.6 Scott overturn these precedents; indeed, plainly indicates category acquittals includes "judgment[s] convict." 2194.7 11 argues nonetheless permissible Justices Boston Municipal Lydon, 466 294, 104 1805, 80 311 (1984), resumption simply constitute "continuing jeopardy." Brief Respondent 87-88. But Lydon teaches "[a]cquittals, unlike convictions, terminate initial 308, 1813. Thus, Arizona Rumsey, 467 203, 211-212, 2305, 2310-11, 81 164 (1984).8 12 When successful lead violate itself no proper purpose. Allowing frustrate interest accused having end him. correct, 'further sort, 570, 1354.9 13 hold, 14 15 Reversed. Various misdemeanor filed petitioners, well relating previous another they owned. These other petition. 1124, 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. (1985 Pamphlet), provides part: "Challenges Sufficiency Evidence "(a) A may challenge conviction more offenses a: "(1) case-in-chief; "(b) shall admission any except purpose demurrer. If sustained, present proceed." Before Court, consolidated presenting same jeopardy issue, 318 402, 465 16 (1983). For jurisdiction, final subject time 28 U.S.C. § 1257(3). Harris 404 55, 92 183, 212 (1971). As explained Abney 431 651, 2034, 52 651 (1977): "[T]he guarantee assures individual among things, he will forced, exceptions, endure personal strain, public embarrassment, expense than once offense. Obviously, aspects guarantee's protections lost forced 'run gauntlet' taken; even acquitted, convicted, ultimately reversed grounds, still been designed prohibit." 661-662, 2041-2042 (footnote omitted). course accept Court's what must consider just "the characterization own action cannot control classification [under Clause]," 96, 2196, (citation omitted), so too characterization, binding us. See (1978), where Appeals' "unquestionably 'represente[d] resolution, Id. 10, 2147 status affected allegation "erred degree recklessness required shown Pennsylvania's [third-degree] murder." Tr. Oral Arg. 24. erroneous evidentiary rulings interpretations governing legal principles' affects accuracy alter essential character." 98, id., 106, 2201 (BRENNAN, dissenting)). Accord, sitting sentencer death-penalty proceeding entered "acquittal," i.e., life sentence, based construction particular aggravating circumstance. held sentencing hearing. It distinguished Wilson, 420 332, 95 1013, 232 (1975), holds n.o.v. guilty. Rumsey explains "[n]o problem Wilson appellate upon reviewing asserted errors jury's reinstated; new necessary, therefore twice placed 2310-2311. "further proceedings" standard quoted first articulated Jenkins, 370, 1006, 250 detract authority. overrules Jenkins insofar government successfully moves "unrelated innocence. ." 99, 2198. issue us Clause; circumstances appealable presented.

Category: 0