Also known as: required findings of not guilty · directed verdict of acquittal · judgment of acquittal
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural ruling by which a court enters a judgment of acquittal when the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling may be entered on the defendant's motion or on the court's own initiative after the government closes its evidence or after the close of all evidence. It bars retrial on the same charge under double-jeopardy principles because the determination functions as an acquittal on the merits.
Ronald Reed stood trial for tax evasion. At the close of the government's evidence the prosecutor had shown only discrepancies in bank deposits but no proof of intent to conceal income. Reed moved for a required finding of not guilty. The court granted the motion because no rational juror could find the mental element satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ruby Rivera was convicted of bribery on the basis of ambiguous expense reports. Within fourteen days after the verdict her counsel renewed the motion for a required finding of not guilty. The court set aside the verdict and entered an acquittal because the evidence could not support a finding that any corrupt agreement existed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rosa Ruiz was acquitted of robbing one victim in a multi-victim robbery. The state later charged her with robbing a second victim from the same incident. Ruiz moved for a required finding of not guilty on double-jeopardy grounds. The court granted the motion because the prior acquittal necessarily decided that Ruiz was not one of the robbers.
Robert Rivera was convicted of assault. On appeal the court examined whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding the evidence constitutionally insufficient, the court reversed and ordered entry of a required finding of not guilty, barring retrial.
Roland Rhodes was convicted of drug distribution solely on the basis of affidavits from absent analysts. After the affidavits were held inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause, the remaining evidence was insufficient. The court entered a required finding of not guilty because no rational juror could convict on the surviving proof.
Ricardo Rojas was convicted of aggravated identity theft. The government proved he used another person's identification number but offered no evidence he knew the number belonged to an actual person. The court granted a required finding of not guilty because the knowledge element was not supported by sufficient evidence.
A defendant may move after the government closes its evidence or after the close of all evidence. The motion may also be renewed within fourteen days after a guilty verdict or discharge of the jury.
Supporting sources
The court must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If the answer is no, the court must enter a judgment of acquittal.
Supporting sources
No. An appellate reversal on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient is treated as an acquittal. Double jeopardy therefore bars retrial regardless of whether the state later obtains additional proof.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule expressly authorizes the court to consider sufficiency on its own motion even if the defendant has not moved.
Supporting sources
…that he wanted to shoot police officers. At the close of the State’s evidence, the trial court denied Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal for failure to prove intent to kill a law enforcement officer or knowledge that Officer Moritz was a law enforcement officer. In presenting the defense case, Clark claimed mental illness,…