Court Opinion

ID: 9657996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:43:22.216222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:51.614555
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in that portion of my colleague’s opinion which holds that retrial, following a mistrial because of the inability of the jury to agree on a verdict, violates neither the principles of double jeopardy nor due process. However, I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that, when a defendant unsuccessfully moves for a directed verdict of acquittal based upon the legal insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence and the jury thereafter fails to reach a unanimous verdict, the trial judge’s denial of the directed verdict motion is not subject to appellate review. I would hold that the defendant is entitled to appellate review of his sufficiency of the evidence claim before retrial.
I
When faced with a motion for a directed verdict *137of acquittal following the close of the prosecutor’s case, due process requires a trial judge to review the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution and to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that all elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368; 285 NW2d 284 (1979).
However, the majority today denies defendant any review whatsoever of the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence in a trial in which the prosecutor was unable to convince all members of the jury of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This action confers unbridled discretion upon the trial court because its decision is never subject to appellate review. Since it would violate due process to deny review of a sufficiency of the evidence motion in a trial where a guilty verdict is rendered, I fail to see why the denial of review in a trial resulting in a jury deadlock is any less of a constitutional deprivation. I would hold that the Due Process Clause of the Michigan Constitution1 requires a review of a defendant’s directed verdict motion before retrial.
II
The Supreme Court in Richardson v United States, 468 US 317; 104 S Ct 3081; 82 L Ed 2d 242 (1984), has rejected, on federal constitutional grounds, a defendant’s contention that an appellate court must rule on the sufficiency of the evidence from his first trial which resulted in a deadlocked jury. Under the federal constitution, therefore, a defendant is not entitled to a review of the sufficiency of the evidence at the first trial, even after retrial resulting in conviction. However, *138I find the reasoning of Justice Brennan’s separate opinion compelling:
[A] defendant who is constitutionally entitled to an acquittal but who fails to receive one — because he happens to be tried before an irrational or lawless factfinder or because his jury cannot agree on a verdict — is worse off than a defendant tried before a factfinder who demands constitutionally sufficient evidence. Indeed, he is worse off than a guilty defendant who is acquitted due to mistakes of fact or law. [Id., p 327 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).]
The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in Berry v Commonwealth, 393 Mass 793; 473 NE2d 1115 (1985), declined to follow Richardson and held that a defendant is entitled to appellate review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence from his first trial prior to retrial:
We hold, therefore, that when the Commonwealth has failed to present evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction, and the defendant has moved for a required finding of not guilty, jeopardy terminates when a judge declares a mistrial after the jury fails to agree on a verdict. Furthermore, because double jeopardy principles prohibit trying a defendant twice for the same offense [citations omitted], the defendant is entitled to a review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence before another trial takes place.
The Berry Court based its holding on the Massachusetts common law of jeopardy, and the majority correctly notes that there exists no comparable common law of jeopardy in this state. Ante, p 135. However, there do exist in our constitution guarantees of due process and against double jeopardy, and state courts are free to invoke greater protec*139tions under their own constitutions than are afforded under comparable federal provisions. Ante, p 125. I would invoke those guarantees to require appellate review for the reasons enunciated by Justice Brennan in Richardson and by the Court in Berry.
Ill
A defendant in a criminal trial essentially has two chances for acquittal. First, he may move for a directed verdict of acquittal after the prosecution rests on the ground that the evidence presented is insufficient as a matter of law to support a guilty verdict. Second, he may be found not guilty by the factfinder on the ground that the prosecution has not proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the majority opinion today, however, a defendant who encounters the misfortune of jury deadlock following a trial in which he has already argued that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to convict him is left with the worst of both worlds — without an acquittal, and without the right to appeal the only other issue which might bring an acquittal, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence. He must therefore endure the anxiety and expense of another trial without having any chance to have an appellate court determine whether he should have been retried at all.2 If indeed defendant in this case had been entitled to acquittal because of insufficiency of evidence, he is *140now worse off than he would have been had he been convicted in the first trial.
IV
The majority today, and I believe correctly, to some degree subordinates a defendant’s right to have his guilt or innocence determined by one jury to the state’s interest in having one complete opportunity to convict those accused of committing crimes in those cases where a jury is unable to agree upon a verdict. However, in those cases where a sufficiency of the evidence issue has been raised and thereby preserved for review in the event of a conviction, the majority precludes any appellate review whatsoever of the issue when the jury is unable to agree on exactly the same question; i.e., whether the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty. This preclusion of appellate review, on top of the burden resulting from a second trial, certainly adds to the defendant’s jeopardy, if it does not double it. I believe that allowing a defendant to have an appellate court rule on the sufficiency of the evidence from the first trial before retrial best ensures the preservation of both a defendant’s interest in having his case decided by one factfinder and the prosecutor’s competing interest in having one complete opportunity to convict accused criminals.
For the above-stated reasons, I respectfully dissent from part IV of the majority opinion.
Levin and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Brickley, J.
Levin, J.
I have signed Justice Brickley’s opinion to indicate my agreement with the. view there stated that Thompson is entitled to appellate re*141view of his sufficiency of the evidence claim before retrial. I write separately to express my disagreement with the disposition of the hung jury issue.
This Court granted leave to appeal to consider the question whether retrial following a hung jury is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. We were aware that courts, including this Court, for nearly a century have been stating that it is not. A majority of the Court was, however, of the view that these statements should be reexamined.
The United States Supreme Court, in Green v United States, 355 US 184, 187-188; 78 S Ct 211; 2 L Ed 2d 199 (1957), identified the interests of the defendant protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause:
[T]he State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.
The opinion of the Court states that
[t]he defendant’s interests "in avoiding harassment from repeated proceedings and in having his guilt decided by the jury impaneled to try him,” People v Anderson [409 Mich 474, 483-484; 295 NW2d 482 (1980)], are protected by an absolute bar against reprosecution following acquittal on the merits, United States v Scott, 437 US 82, 91, 96; 98 S Ct 2187; 57 L Ed 2d 65 (1978), by the principle that jeopardy bars retrial after a reversal based on insufficiency of the evidence, Burks v United States, 437 US 1; 98 S Ct 2141; 57 L Ed 2d 1 (1978), and by the requirement that a mistrial be prompted by manifest necessity before reprosecu*142tion is permissible. People v Johnson [396 Mich 424; 240 NW2d 729 (1976)].[1]
This does not explain why a defendant’s interest in not being retried after a hung jury is not similarly protected. The prosecution in a hung jury case has had one full and fair opportunity to convict and has failed to do so. The opinion of the Court does not explain why a defendant’s interests in avoiding the embarrassment, expense, ordeal, anxiety and insecurity of a second trial, and enhanced possibility of conviction although innocent following a second trial, are protected in some situations, but not where there has been a hung jury.
The Court should explain, other than in conclusory terms, its disposition of the hung jury issue or dismiss this aspect of Thompson’s appeal on the basis that leave to appeal was improvidently granted._

 Const 1963, art 1, § 17.

 That a similar motion made in defendant’s retrial would be subject to appellate review following his conviction does not, in my view, serve to satisfy the guarantee of due process. The prosecution may, as a result of the jury deadlock, recognize the weaknesses of its case and strive to correct them on retrial. Therefore, the fact that the prosecution’s case was legally sufficient at the second trial does not ipso facto render defendant’s sufficiency challenge from the first trial meritless.

 Ante, p 130.