State v. Morgan
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WYNN, Judge.
The United States Supreme Court has held that “[a]n order entering ... a finding [that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction] meets the definition of acquittal that our double-jeopardy cases have consistently used].]” 1 Because we find that the District Court’s dismissal of criminal charges against the defendant in this case was based on a finding that the State’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, we conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the State’s appeal. We therefore reverse the order of the Superior Court.
At 2:37 a.m. on 4…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Smalis v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Smith v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. FowlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- State v. PettyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008