Document: 437 U.S. 19 98 S.Ct. 2151 57 L.Ed.2d 15 Richard Austin GREENE, Petitioner,v.Raymond D. MASSEY, Superintendent, Union Correctional Institution. No. 76-6617. Argued Nov. 28, 1977. Decided June 14, 1978. Syllabus On appeal of the first-degree murder convictions petitioner and another, Florida Supreme Court reversed by a per curiam opinion ordered new trial. That opinion, which majority four justices joined, stated that "the evidence was definitely lacking in establishing beyond reasonable doubt defendants committed first degree," "interests justice require trial." Three dissented without opinion. who had joined also filed "special concurrence," which, though concerned only with trial error, concluded "[f]or reasons judgments should be remanded for so we have agreed to Per Curiam order doing so." Before second unsuccessfully contended state courts tantamount finding court directed verdict not guilty would constitute double jeopardy; were retried convicted murder. Petitioner his codefendant, application habeas corpus District Appeals, unavailingly pressed their jeopardy claims. Held: Burks v. United States, 1, 2141, precludes once reviewing has determined introduced at is insufficient sustain verdict. Standing itself, therefore clearly compel conclusion petitioner's violated Double Jeopardy Clause. But special concurrence leaves open possibility three simply error remand solely give an error-free trial—even they satisfied sufficient support So ambiguity can resolved, case Appeals reconsideration light Court's Burks, supra. Pp. 24-27. 546 F.2d 51, remanded. John T. Chandler, Gainesville, Fla., petitioner, pro hac vice, leave Court. Harry M. Hipler, West Palm Beach, respondent, Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered 1 We granted certiorari decide whether State may retry defendant after conviction been appellate on ground prior insufficient, as matter law, jury's 2 * September 7, 1965, Greene Jose Manuel Sosa indicted grand jury Nicanor Martinez. The indictment charged "did hire, procure, aid, abet counsel" Martinez carried out premeditated plan, shooting victim death pistol. A state-court subsequently found murder, recommendation mercy. Pursuant law time, sentenced both death. 3 Court, trials ordered. sharply divided, however, composed joining brief disposed following terms: 4 "After careful review voluminous here are view degree, interests accordingly State, 215 So.2d 736, 737 (1968). (Emphasis added.) 5 opinion; do no more than speculate dissenting there In addition, separate concurrence" behalf remanding These concurring undertook detailed examination various asserted errors least one claim reversible error.1 This point improper admission certain hearsay justices, "potential probative force" could "highly incriminating or critical establishment ultimate fact dispute." Id., 745. While makes mention evidentiary insufficiency such, concludes: 6 "For 746. 7 "reasons stated" thus but paradoxically, explicitly rested exclusively 8 then remanded, some intervening procedural maneuvering, Circuit Orange County, Fla. Prior trial, suggestion writ prohibition, claiming retrial violate Clause Federal Consti ution, it applied States Benton Maryland, 395 784, 89 2056, 23 707 (1969). They hence jeopardy. When refused issue writ, sought Second Appeal Florida. likewise declined expressly rendering "an propriety reversal lack establish, essential elements crime charged." Maxwell, 234 690, 692 (1970). Rather, "appear[ed] based evidence, technically sufficient, [was] tenuous prompt exercise its discretion and, interest justice, grant 691.2 Considering this posture, indicated find precedent bar grounds.3 Certiorari Florida, denied petition comment. 240 640 9 retried. January 15, 1972, each received life sentence, having recommended From judgment appealed Fourth raising again contention conceding academically intriguing," 302 202, 203 (1974), reach merits claim, holding instead Appeal's earlier disposition res judicata. denied. 421 932, 95 1660, 44 (1975). 10 Having exhausted all avenues direct relief, Greene4 arguing held violation Although sympathetic claim,5 felt constrained Fifth dismiss petition. ruling affirmed basis case, Musquiz, 445 963 (1971). 51 (1977). Musquiz decision interpreted several cases6 mean under 28 U.S.C § 2106, appeals due "if motion made court." Greene, 56. Noting conviction, "review power equal possessed [of Appeals] 2106," ibid., constitutionally permissible remedy. 11 certiorari, 432 905, 97 2949, 53 1077 (1977), Appeals. II 12 decided today, Since constitutional prohibition against fully applicable criminal proceedings, supra, bound apply standard announced now review. 13 If confronted follow. disposition, standing room interpretation us other "of degree . ." By using precise terminology "lacking doubt," highest seems said permit convict trial.7 dispositive reference raised appeal. Viewed manner, reasoning enunciated obviously Green's 14 situation confused qualified action "specially concurring" discussed error. One interpret afford fair, grounded such holding, course, prevent retrial.8 See ante, U.S., 15-16, S.Ct., 2149; Tateo, 377 463, 465, 84 1587, 1588, 448 (1964). problem concludes stating "agreed considered language reasonably thought legally competent adduced prove guilt. is, inadmissible discounted, convict.9 Given varying interpretations10 placed actions courts, conclude 437. will free further proceedings certify unresolved questions Fla.Stat. 25.031 Fla.App. Rule 4.61; Lehman Bros. Schein, 416 386, 94 1741, 40 (1974). 16 Reversed 17 BLACKMUN took part consideration case. 18 POWELL, concurring. I concur except insofar states proceedings. Crist Bretz, 40, 2156, 2163, 24 (POWELL, J., dissenting). bel eve our today fundamental component right 20 REHNQUIST, judgment. 21 For POWELL 24. agree premise, p. 24, proceedings." Even if did view, want emphasize does practices respect motions challenges sufficiency level 50 different Union. Thus, extent practice regard differs from federal system, impact differ particular proceeding. improperly ruled question concerning subpoena duces tecum, result defense deprived entitled. It clear regarded requiring reversal. noted "on many occasions" "held where weight appears very weak, although apparently inferences witnesses believed disbelieved, granted." So.2d, 691. construed "as indicating present, grave affirmance minds those members supreme decision." 691 n. 10. failed might verdict, opine dictum circumstances judge acquittal." 692. party action; accordingly, effect conviction. unreported dismissing petition, impression Circuit, inclined Regardless determination guilt charge, regardless moves grounds addition asserting seem clause preclude giving prosecution chance." included Forman 361 416, 80 481, 412 (1960); Sapir 348 373, 75 422, 99 L.Ed. 426 (1955); Bryan 338 552, 70 317, 335 (1950). Arguably, read meaning "murder nonetheless lesser offense, e. g., second-degree see 782.04 At time conceivably any need consider whether, Constitution, allowed offense. Cf. Green 355 184, 78 221, 199 (1957). Indeed, even (1969), action, c ncluded decisions 10, 2147. could, consistent Clause, try offense event voided. accepted, still plurality embraced justified trial-error grounds. resolution remand, undoubtedly better position understand how construe disposition. express implications holding. note attached another namely, being "in justice," guilty. 22 2. unaware, amount district appeal's actions. Nor willing these considerations remand.

Category: 0