Smalis v. Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court’s granting of defendant’s motion for demurrer constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes because it was based on insufficiency of the evidence
• holding that a trial judge’s grant of a demurrer, based on insufficiency of the evidence to establish factual guilt, constituted a nonappealable acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause
• holding that, whether the trial is to a jury or to the bench, a judgment by the trial court that the evidence is insufficient to convict constitutes an acquittal
• holding that Double Jeopardy Clause is an absolute bar against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense following a determination by the trial judge that the evidence supporting the offense was insufficient as a matter of law
• concluding “a demurrer is not the functional equivalent of an acquittal” and therefore double jeopardy is no bar to an appeal
• concluding “a demurrer is not the functional equivalent of an acquittal” and therefore double jeopardy is no bar to an appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).