People v. Cordero
965 N.E.2d 1197
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- defendant Sergio Cordero was convicted by bench trial of aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-14(a)(3)).
- The trial court denied outright acquittal but granted a new trial due to reversible error from exclusion of certain evidence.
- Cordero moved to dismiss the charge on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that retrial would violate double jeopardy because the first trial was legally insufficient.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Cordero appealed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(f).
- The appellate court held that the original jeopardy had not terminated, so a retrial is permissible regardless of the first-trial sufficiency.
- The court affirmed the circuit court’s interlocutory order denying dismissal and allowing retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Has original jeopardy terminated to bar retrial? | People contends jeopardy did not terminate. | Cordero contends jeopardy terminated, preventing retrial. | Jeopardy did not terminate; retrial allowed. |
| Does Richardson govern retrial where first trial ends with conviction but retrial is granted for trial error? | People relies on Richardson to permit retrial despite potential insufficiency. | Cordero argues Richardson is limited to hung-jury scenarios and not this context. | Richardson supports retrial; double jeopardy not barred here. |
| Is retrial barred by double jeopardy regardless of first-trial sufficiency? | People asserts retrial is permissible regardless of sufficiency. | Cordero suggests insufficiency could bar retrial. | Retrial allowed regardless of first-trial sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984) (jeopardy not terminated by mistrial; retrial permitted)
- People v. Smith, 338 Ill.App.3d 254 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (sufficiency cannot be raised if original jeopardy not terminated)
- People v. Placek, 184 Ill.2d 370 (Ill. 1998) (double jeopardy framework for identical offenses)
- People v. Hobbs, 301 Ill.App.3d 581 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 1998) (retrial after mistrial depends on jeopardy status)
- Smith, 338 Ill.App.3d 254 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2003) (see Richardson; sufficiency not addressed if jeopardy ongoing)
- United States v. Wood, 958 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1992) (continuing jeopardy doctrine; retrial after conviction not barred by sufficiency)
- United States v. Porter, 807 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1986) (retrial after conviction for trial error consistent with continuing jeopardy)
- United States v. McAleer, 138 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 1998) (double jeopardy does not bar retry after conviction set aside for trial error)
- United States v. Carpenter, 494 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (continuing jeopardy principle supports retrial after error)
- United States v. Wood, 958 F.2d 963 (10th Cir. 1992) (explains jeopardy termination concepts)