State v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 20 September 1989
• Docket Number: No. 45S00-8711-CR-01088,45S00-8711-CR-01088
• Citation: 543 N.E.2d 1116
• Parties: STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. William R. LEWIS, M.D., Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1116

543 N.E.2d 1116

STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. William R. LEWIS, M.D., Appellee.

No. 45S00-8711-CR-01088.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 20, 1989.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, John F. Crawford, Jr., Pros. Atty., for Lake County, Crown Point, for appellant.

Ellen S. Podgor, David H. Nicholls, Crown Point, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

In February, 1980, appellee was tried to a jury on charges of performance of an unlawful abortion and attempted performance of an unlawful abortion. At the close of the State's evidence, the trial court granted appellee's motion for judgment on the evidence on the first count, but submitted the attempt count to the jury. The jury deadlocked, a mistrial was declared, and the jury was discharged on February 9, 1980. On February 13, 1980, the State filed a motion asking the court to set the case for retrial. A week later, appellee submitted a renewed motion for judgment on the evidence pursuant to Trial Rule 50 which was granted on April 11, 1980. The State appealed directly to this Court, and we reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the granting of appellee's motion for judgment on the evidence was in error and that a retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. State v. Lewis (1981), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 1110. The State made a motion in the trial court to set the cause for retrial. Appellee Lewis challenged this Court's ruling in the United States Supreme Court, and after certiorari was denied, 457 U.S. 1118, 102 S.Ct. 2931, 73 L.Ed.2d 1331 (1982), the State renewed its motion to have the cause set for retrial. A March, 1983 trial date was set, and appellee was released on a recognizance bond. The State filed an amended indictment, which appellee moved to dismiss.

Following the denial of that motion, a long delay ensued due to the entry and consideration of amended and renewed motions to dismiss and to a series of continuances which were granted based on several changes of judges and of defense counsel and on appellee's ill health. In April of 1987, appellee filed a motion to reconsider his motion to dismiss. Judge Justice granted that motion and ordered appellee discharged on May 28, 1987, holding that, based on developments in the law subsequent to the 1981 Lewis decision, a retrial of this cause would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. The State appeals, asserting that this Court's 1981 ruling, that a retrial of this cause would not constitute double jeopardy, is the law of the case, and that therefore the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to dismiss the amended indictment and in ordering appellee discharged.

We affirm the decision of the trial court.

There is no question that under prevailing United States Supreme Court and Indiana Supreme Court doctrine, to retry appellee would constitute a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court eliminated confusion then existing in double jeopardy doctrine when it unanimously held that a ruling by a court "that as a matter of law the State's evidence is insufficient to establish [a defendant's] factual guilt.... is an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause," Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140, 144, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 1748, 90 L.Ed.2d 116, 121 (1986), and that "subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause." Id. at 145, 106 S.Ct. at 1749, 90 L.Ed.2d at 122 (citation omitted). In 1987, this Court likewise unanimously found that the grant of a judgment to a defendant by a trial judge constitutes an acquittal which bars retrial. State v. Goodrich (1987), Ind., 504 N.E.2d 1023, 1024, citing Smalis, 476 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 90 L.Ed.2d 116.

In the original proceedings on this cause, the trial court granted appellee's motion for judgment on the evidence after declaring a mistrial upon a deadlock and dismissing the jury. Its order stated:

The court finds that there is insufficient credible evidence upon which reasonable minds might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempt to Perform an Illegal Abortion, and that judgment on the evidence should be rendered for the defendant.

This order effected an acquittal of appellee of the charge against him since "a judgment that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict constitutes an acquittal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause." Smalis, 476 U.S. at 142, 106 S.Ct. at 1747, 90 L.Ed.2d at 120, citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977). This remains true despite the fact that the order was not formally designated as an acquittal. The United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that what constitutes an 'acquittal' is not to be controlled by the form of the judge's action[, but by] whether the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged." Martin Linen, 430 U.S. at 571, 97 S.Ct. at 1354-55, 51 L.Ed.2d at 651 (citations and footnote omitted).

Cases from both the United States Supreme Court and this Court further dictate that the subsequent finding that the judge's ruling was erroneous, Lewis, 429 N.E.2d at 1116-17, is irrelevant for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 211, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 2310, 81 L.Ed.2d 164, 172 (1984) ("[A]n acquittal on the merits bars retrial even if based on legal error."); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2197, 57 L.Ed.2d 65, 79 (1978) (quoting id. at 106, 98 S.Ct. at 2201, 57 L.Ed.2d at 84 (Brennan, J., dissenting)) ("[T]he fact that 'the acquittal may result from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles' ......