State v. Northup

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Northup

688 A.2d 863, 1997 R.I. LEXIS 38, 1997 WL 66047

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

Docket96-338-C.A.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 688 A.2d 863 (State v. Northup) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Northup, 688 A.2d 863, 1997 R.I. LEXIS 38, 1997 WL 66047 (R.I. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument January 28, 1997, pursuant to an order that had directed the defendant to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and the issues raised by this appeal should be decided at this time.

The defendant appeals from an order of a justice of the Superior Court denying a motion for judgment of acquittal in the course of a trial in which the defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and three counts of conspiracy. Following the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal on the three assault counts, the case was submitted to the jury who failed to agree on the issue of guilt or innocence. Consequently, the trial justice declared a mistrial. Following the declaration of a mistrial, the defendant filed the instant appeal.

A denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal followed by a mistrial due to the inability of a jury to agree upon a verdict does not constitute a final judgment in the Superior Court. A mistrial due to an inability of a jury to reach a verdict does not bar a retrial on principles of double jeopardy. A defendant has no right to have the sufficiency of the evidence reviewed on appeal following a mistrial as he would following a conviction. See Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325, 104 S.Ct. 3081, 3086, 82 L.Ed.2d 242, 251 (1984); see also State v. Grabowski 644 A.2d 1282, 1286 (R.I.1994); State v. Donato, 414 A.2d 797, 800-01 (R.I.1980).

Consequently, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed as interlocutory. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This case came before the court for oral argument January 28, 1997, pursuant to an order that had directed the defendant to appear in order to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown and the issues raised by this appeal should be decided at this time.

The defendant appeals from an order of a justice of the Superior Court denying a motion for judgment of acquittal in the course of a trial in which the defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and three counts of conspiracy. Following the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal on the three assault counts, the case was submitted to the jury who failed to agree on the issue of guilt or innocence. Consequently, the trial justice declared a mistrial. Following the declaration of a mistrial, the defendant filed the instant appeal.

A denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal followed by a mistrial due to the inability of a jury to agree upon a verdict does not constitute a final judgment in the Superior Court. A mistrial due to an inability of a jury to reach a verdict does not bar a retrial on principles of double jeopardy. A defendant has no right to have the sufficiency of the evidence reviewed on appeal following a mistrial as he would following a conviction. See Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325, 104 S.Ct. 3081, 3086, 82 L.Ed.2d 242, 251 (1984); see also State v. Grabowski 644 A.2d 1282, 1286 (R.I.1994); State v. Donato, 414 A.2d 797, 800-01 (R.I.1980).

Consequently, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed as interlocutory. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 A.2d 863, 1997 R.I. LEXIS 38, 1997 WL 66047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-northup-ri-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack