Legal Opinion · Dissent

Paschal v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 21, 1968No. 5368Published

1Dissent

Conley Byrd, Justice.

I dissent to that part of the opinion remanding this case for a new trial. I do so because it constitutes double jeopardy. In so dissenting I recognize that all reversals for new trials do not constitute double jeopardy.

Here the jury was impaneled and sworn. After the evidence was heard appellant moved for a directed verdict which we now hold the trial court should have granted because there was no legal evidence to sustain a conviction. If the trial court had granted the motion, appellant would have been discharged and former jeopardy would have attached.

In Whitmore v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whitmore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
  2. State v. GraySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  3. State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API