Evans v. Michigan

Background

Lamar Evans was tried for burning “other real property” after evidence suggested he set fire to an unoccupied house. At the close of the State’s case, his lawyer moved for a directed verdict, pointing to Michigan jury instructions that listed “the building was not a dwelling house” as an element. The trial judge accepted that view, concluded the State had not proved that nonexistent element, and entered an acquittal. The Michigan courts later disagreed about whether that acquittal barred retrial, and the Supreme Court agreed to resolve the conflict.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a midtrial acquittal based on a judge’s erroneous addition of a statutory element — i.e., a ruling that the prosecution’s proof was insufficient — counts as an acquittal that prevents retrial. The Court relied on prior decisions holding that judicial acquittals based on insufficient evidence, misconstruction of law, or excluded evidence are final and unreviewable. The majority concluded the touchstone is whether the ruling resolved the defendant’s culpability (guilt or innocence), not whether the court happened to identify a formal “element.” Because the trial court evaluated the State’s proof and found it legally insufficient, the Court held that the ruling was an acquittal and barred retrial, and it declined to overturn its longstanding precedents.

Real world impact

The decision prevents prosecutors from retrying a defendant after a judge grants a midtrial acquittal even if the judge erred about the law. States may respond by limiting midtrial acquittals, deferring motions until after a jury verdict, or creating expedited appeals or continuances to avoid mistaken acquittals. The Court reversed the Michigan Supreme Court and ruled that Evans could not be retried.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito dissented, arguing the judge invented an extra “element,” that retrial would only give the State a fair chance to prove the real elements, and that the ruling departs from the original meaning and purpose of double jeopardy.