Ex parte Coleman

Summary

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a second prosecution for theft was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause after the defendant had been acquitted by instructed verdict of the same theft offense. Although the first indictment alleged that the property owner was unknown and the second named an owner, the court examined the trial evidence and concluded that both indictments concerned the same offense and relied on the same proof.

Holdings

1. An instructed verdict granted at the close of the evidence is the functional equivalent of an acquittal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. When the State prosecutes a defendant for theft under an indictment alleging that the property owner was unknown to the grand jury, and jeopardy attaches and terminates, the State may not retry the defendant for the same violation of the same penal statute merely by naming an actual owner in a subsequent indictment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an instructed verdict granted at the close of the evidence is an acquittal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether a second prosecution for the same theft, based on the same conduct and evidence, is barred when the first indictment alleged the property owner was unknown to the grand jury and the second indictment identified a named owner.

Disposition

affirmed