People v. Evans
491 Mich. 1
Mich.2012Background
- Defendant Lamar Evans was charged with burning other real property under MCL 750.73 for starting a fire in a vacant house.
- Trial court granted a directed verdict based on the erroneous belief that the prosecution must prove the building was not a dwelling.
- Prosecutor argued MCL 750.73 does not require proof the structure was not a dwelling; evidence showed the house was a dwelling.
- Court of Appeals reversed the directed verdict, holding retrial was not barred because the ruling did not resolve any factual element of the charged offense.
- The issue presented: whether a trial court’s error-based, non-merits-based acquittal-like ruling bars retrial under double jeopardy.
- Majority opinion concludes that the trial court’s ruling added an extraneous element and did not constitute an acquittal, so retrial is not barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the directed verdict based on an error of law is an acquittal | Evans argues the court’s ruling was not an acquittal because it rested on a legal error unrelated to elements. | Evans argues the court resolved a factual element by ruling the state failed to prove not-a-dwelling, which bars retrial. | Not an acquittal; retrial not barred |
| Whether adding an extraneous element defeats double jeopardy protection | State contends the ruling improperly added a factor not required by statute. | Evans contends there was no warranted element; the ruling prevented merits review. | Extraneous-element ruling does not extinguish double-jeopardy protection; retrial not barred |
| Application of Martin Linen standard to this case | State asserts acquittal standards depend on the form of ruling per Martin Linen. | Evans asserts Martin Linen requires actual resolution of elements, which did not occur here. | Martin Linen applied to find no acquittal; retrial allowed |
| Effect of Nix and Szalma precedents | State relies on Nix to support finality of preverdict rulings. | Evans argues Nix and Szalma support that lack of proof on elements can still yield acquittal, barring retrial. | Nix/Szalma supportive of retrial; no barred retrial |
| Whether Rumsey, Smalis, Smith control distinctions between evidentiary vs. legal errors | State emphasizes distinctions avoid retrial when evidentiary errors occur. | Evans contends these cases show acquittal when the ruling resolves factual elements, regardless of error type. | Distinction favors retrial; not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (defines acquittal as resolution of some or all elements, regardless of label)
- Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986) (acquittal final despite erroneous legal rulings; evidentiary vs. legal error distinction)
- Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005) (acquittal final even when based on erroneous evidentiary/element interpretation)
- Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984) (death-penalty aggravating-factor case; acquittal final despite misinterpretation of statute)
- Smalis v. Pennsylvania (repeated for clarity), 476 U.S. 140 (1986) (addressed demurrer-like rulings and double jeopardy)
- United States v. Maker, 751 F.2d 614 (3d Cir. 1984) (applies related reasoning on double jeopardy and acquittal)
- People v. Nix, 453 Mich. 619 (1996) (Michigan bar on preverdict acquittal and double jeopardy; governs outcome here)
- People v. Szalma, 487 Mich. 708 (2010) (concurring analysis on Nix and acquittal scope)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (dual-concepts of acquittal and correcting legal errors)