Smith v. Massachusetts
Smith was charged with intent to murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and possession of a firearm. At the end of the Commonwealth’s case, Smith moved for a required finding of not guilty on the possession charge, arguing that the Commonwealth had not introduced direct evidence of the gun’s length so had not proved that the gun met the statutory definition of a firearm. The judge allowed the motion, acquitting Smith of the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. At the close of the defense’s case, the Commonwealth introduced a case holding that evidence showing that a gun was a pistol or revolver was sufficient evidence to permit a firearm charge to go to the jury. Since the Commonwealth had introduced testimony that the gun was a “pistol,” the judge reversed his previous decision and allowed the firearm charge to go to the jury.
Smith appealed to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, arguing that once the judge granted the motion for acquittal on the firearm charge, double jeopardy prevented the judge from reversing the decision, regardless of his reasons. The Commonwealth argued that since the charge was submitted to the same jury that had heard the evidence, the defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy. The Appeals Court agreed with the Commonwealth, holding that “double jeopardy protections were not violated in these circumstances because the judge’s correction of her ruling did not require a second proceeding.”
Questions Presented:
1. Should this Court grant certiorari to directly review Smith's case and decide the question that, constrained by the habeas corpus standard of
review, it did not reach in the recent case of Price v. Vincent? That is, whether the double jeopardy clause's prohibition against successive prosecutions is violated where the judge
unequivocally rules that the defendant is not guilty because the government's evidence is insufficient but later reverses her finding of not guilty?
2. There is a split of opinion among the United States Courts of Appeals and among the state courts on the question of whether, in similar situations, trial judges violate the double jeopardy
protection against successive prosecution by withdrawing an already granted verdict of not guilty. Should this Court grant certiorari to clarify its jurisprudence?
