Evans v. Michigan, 133 S. Ct. 1069

Evans was charged with burning “other real property” under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.73; trial court entered a directed verdict finding the State failed to prove a non-existent element (that the building was not a dwelling).
The court reasoned the relevant non-dwelling requirement was an element under §750.73, which the State allegedly did not prove, leading to acquittal on the merits.
Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding misperception of the elements but allowing retrial; Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that such an error did not constitute an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.
The United States and State urged that the underlying error was “misinterpretation” or “misconstruction” of a statute, not the addition of an extraneous element, but the Court treated substance over labels.
This Court reverses, holding that a midtrial acquittal premised on failure to prove a non-existent element is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes and bars retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a midtrial acquittal based on an incorrect element bars retrial	Evans: acquittal based on nonexistent element should not bar retrial	State/United States: the ruling was a mere legal error, not an acquittal on the merits	Yes; acquittal bars retrial when based on non-existent element or erroneous legal principle.
Whether the erroneous addition of an extraneous element constitutes an acquittal	Evans: error created an extra element, not resolved any actual element	State/United States: court’s error resembles misconstruction of statute	Yes; such an error still constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.
Whether existing double jeopardy precedent forbids re-prosecution despite the error	Evans: longstanding precedents require finality despite error	State/United States: distinctions between meris-based and procedural errors are necessary	Yes; precedents (Fong Foo, Martin Linen, Smith, Rumsey, etc.) control and bar retrial.
Whether the Court should overrule or persist with existing double jeopardy doctrine	Evans: should not overturn well-established rules	State/United States: precedent should be retained to avoid endless retrials	No overruling of settled precedents; reaffirmation of current doctrine.
Whether the State’s appeal should have been barred and whether judgment should be reversed	Evans: appeal barred by acquittal; dismissal proper	State: appeal permissible	The State's appeal reversed; Evans’ acquittal bars retrial.

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962) (acquittal final; cannot be reviewed on error)
United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896) (acquittal bars retrial; finality principle)
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005) (acquittal determined by merits or lack of evidence; retrial barred)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (insufficiency of evidence in defense; acquittal bars retrial)
Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (acquittal based on lack of proof of culpability; elements focus)
Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (acquittal due to evidentiary issues; double jeopardy applies)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (distinguishes meris-related rulings from procedural dismissals)
Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984) (misconstruction of statute as basis for acquittal bars retrial)
Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986) (preverdict demurrer based on legal insufficiency treated as acquittal)
Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23 (1977) (indictment error; mistrial-like result not bar to retrial)
Dinitz v. United States, 424 U.S. 600 (1976) (consent to mistrial affects jeopardy)
Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012) (jeopardy and retrial concerns after partial trial)