State v. Millanes
In State v. Millanes, 180 Ariz. 418, 421-23, 885 P.2d 106, 109-11 (App. 1994), the Court held that a trial court's reversal of a judgment of acquittal had placed the defendant in double jeopardy because the transcript and the court's minute entry left no question that an acquittal had been granted. Id. at 422, 885 P.2d at 110.
In Millanes, this court distinguished Newfield because there the trial court had merely considered Newfield's motion before denying it, rather than having granted an acquittal it later reversed. Id.
The Court stated:
Whether the state attempts to do it by bringing a second indictment, appealing the acquittal to a higher court, or, as occurred here, by directly seeking to have the trial court reverse its ruling of acquittal makes no difference. In any of these situations, there would have to be further fact-finding proceedings for the state to obtain a conviction. Regardless of the manner, "subjecting the defendant to post-acquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause." Id. at 423, 885 P.2d at 111.