People v. Stackhouse, 2018 CO 60

In 2008 Stackhouse was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault on a child (including assault by one in a position of trust) and a pattern-of-abuse sentence enhancer; a 2010 jury convicted him on two substantive counts but rejected the pattern enhancer.
Stackhouse successfully obtained collateral relief (C.R.C.P. 35(c)) because the trial court failed to give a unanimity instruction; convictions were vacated and a new trial ordered.
For retrial, Stackhouse moved to limit the prosecution to a single alleged act (a January 2007 report to a teacher), arguing the prior jury’s “no” on the pattern interrogatory meant they unanimously found only one incident occurred and double jeopardy barred relitigation of other alleged incidents.
The district court granted that motion, concluding the first jury necessarily found only a single act of abuse; the People sought review under C.A.R. 21.
The Colorado Supreme Court accepted original jurisdiction to decide whether the jury’s rejection of the pattern enhancer precluded retrial on multiple alleged incidents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Stackhouse)	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial on multiple alleged acts because the prior jury rejected the pattern-of-abuse enhancer	The district court erred; the jury’s rejection of the pattern enhancer does not necessarily preclude retrial on multiple incidents	The jury’s unanimous “no” on the pattern interrogatory necessarily meant only a single incident was proven, so other incidents cannot be retried	Court held the People may retry on multiple alleged incidents; the interrogatory did not prove the jury found only a single act
Proper inquiry for what a prior jury necessarily decided based on a special interrogatory	Examine the full record to see if a rational jury could have grounded its verdict on an issue other than the one defendant seeks to foreclose	Same: focus on whether the interrogatory unambiguously resolves the discrete factual issue defendant seeks to preclude	Court reiterated Ashe/Yeager test: review whole record; here the interrogatory only showed lack of unanimity about two or more listed types, not unanimity that only one incident occurred

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (preclusive effect of jury determinations; must ask what the jury necessarily decided)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (government cannot relitigate issues necessarily decided by prior acquittal)
People v. Miller, 25 P.3d 1230 (Colo. 2001) (explaining when original jurisdiction via C.A.R. 21 is appropriate)