People v. Beller, 411 P.3d 1145

Beller was charged with felony murder and two counts of aggravated robbery, with predicate offenses including attempted aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery, all in a single information.
The first trial ended with the jury hung on felony murder and acquittals on the aggravated robbery counts; the court declared a mistrial on felony murder.
Before the second trial, Beller moved for acquittal on felony murder arguing double jeopardy barred retrial; the motion was denied.
In the second trial, the court limited predicate offenses to robbery and attempted robbery; Beller was convicted of felony murder.
Beller argues the retrial violated double jeopardy and that the admission of a co-defendant Shaffer’s hearsay statements violated hearsay and Confrontation Clause rules; the court affirms the felony murder conviction.
The court concludes retrial did not violate double jeopardy and that Shaffer’s statements were admissible under the statements against interest exception and did not violate the Colorado Confrontation Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did retrial for felony murder after a hung jury violate double jeopardy?	Beller asserts jeopardy terminated on the felony murder count.	People contend no jeopardy termination occurred because predicates were tried in same information.	No; jeopardy did not terminate, retrial permitted.
Were Shaffer’s statements admissible under hearsay rules and conforming Confrontation Clause protections?	Beller argues statements were inadmissible hearsay and violated confrontation rights.	People rely on exceptions for statements against interest and trustworthiness.	Yes; statements admitted under CRE 804(b)(3) and Confrontation Clause were proper.

Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (multicount indictment not per se bar to retrial on greater/lesser offenses)
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) (jeopardy termination rules in successive prosecutions)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (issue preclusion; evaluation of what a jury necessarily decided)
Wilson v. Czerniak, 355 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2004) (retrial limitations under double jeopardy in related offenses)
United States v. Jose, 425 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2005) (final predicate convictions do not trigger double jeopardy preclusion in same indictment)
Lemke v. Rayes, 141 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (jeopardy does not terminate where greater/lesser offenses litigated together in same case)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (same offense analysis; separate prosecutions context explained)
Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002) (trustworthiness/corroborating circumstances in CRE 804(b)(3))
Jensen, 55 P.3d 135 (Colo. App. 2001) (trustworthiness of accomplice statements when made to a friend)