State v. Terwilliger

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the defendant's 2011 conviction for intentional first-degree manslaughter with a firearm should be affirmed. It reasons that the defendant's 2005 general verdict for the same offense, which did not identify the applicable statutory alternative, was not an implied acquittal of either alternative and therefore did not bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The concurrence separately emphasizes that a general verdict concerning alternative means of committing one offense ordinarily does not establish an acquittal unless the alternatives are logically inconsistent.