State v. Pexa

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding, in a context other than first-degree murder, that “[a] failure to consider an alternative definition of the offense charged does not constitute an acquittal of that offense for double jeopardy purposes” (citations omitted)
• holding the district court’s original decision, a decision on appeal, and the district court’s decision on remand is a “continuous judicial examination ... in the same proceeding” for the purpose of evaluating whether jeopardy attaches to a criminal defendant
• holding for double jeopardy purposes, “[t]he district court’s original decision, our decision on appeal, and the district court’s decision on remand is a continuous judicial examination of defendant’s guilt in the same proceeding.”
• holding the district court’s original decision, a decision on appeal, and the district court’s decision on remand is a “continuous judicial examination . . . in the same proceeding” for the purpose of evaluating whether jeopardy attaches to a criminal defendant
• vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings on the existing record when the district court misapplied the statute and “an issue of fact remain[ed] concerning the defendant’s guilt”
• \A failure to consider an alternative definition of the offense charged does not constitute an acquittal of that offense for double jeopardy purposes.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).