Grimes v. State, 188 A.3d 824

Russell Grimes was indicted for first-degree robbery, aggravated menacing (a lesser-included offense), and related charges; at trial a jury convicted him of first-degree robbery but acquitted him of aggravated menacing.
The court later vacated Grimes’s robbery conviction due to an error in jury selection and remanded for a new trial; on retrial a jury again convicted him of first-degree robbery.
Grimes argued the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial for the greater offense because he had already been acquitted of the lesser-included offense in the same original verdict.
The State and amicus relied on precedent holding that vacatur of a conviction permits retrial (Ball) and on cases distinguishing successive prosecutions from multiple counts tried together (Johnson, Price).
The Superior Court affirmed Grimes’s conviction; the Supreme Court of Delaware (this opinion) affirmed, holding the acquittal did not bar retrial of the greater offense and issue preclusion did not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an acquittal on a lesser-included offense in the same trial bars retrial on a greater offense after the greater conviction is vacated	Grimes: the acquittal on aggravated menacing (a lesser-included offense) is final and prevents retrial on first-degree robbery under Double Jeopardy	State: Ball permits retrial after vacatur; Johnson and Price distinguish single multicount prosecutions from successive prosecutions and allow retrial	Held: Retrial allowed. An acquittal in the same continuous prosecution does not bar retrial of a greater offense after vacatur.
Whether an intra-prosecution acquittal has issue-preclusive effect preventing retrial on a related charge	Grimes: acquittal conclusively decided an ultimate fact precluding retrial on overlapping elements	State: inconsistent verdicts undermine any claim that an ultimate fact was finally decided; cannot discern which verdict was rational	Held: No issue preclusion. Irreconcilable verdicts prevent application of issue preclusion because it is unclear which verdict reflected a rational determination.

Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (retrial permitted after conviction vacated)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (acquittal bars successive prosecution for greater/lesser-included offenses)
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (distinguishing multi-count single prosecutions from successive prosecutions)
Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 (retrial allowed after vacatur despite prior acquittal on related charge)
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 352 (issue-preclusion component of Double Jeopardy; limits when acquittal precludes relitigation)
Poteat v. State, 840 A.2d 599 (Del. 2003) (holding aggravated menacing is lesser-included of first-degree robbery)
Blake v. State, 65 A.3d 557 (Del. 2013) (application of Brown in successive-prosecution context)