Commonwealth v. Guardado

Summary

The court reconsidered the remedy for the defendant's firearm, ammunition, and loaded-firearm convictions after a later constitutional decision made lack of licensure an essential element that had not been submitted to the jury. It held that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial because the Commonwealth had no reason under the law governing the trial to present licensure evidence, so the evidentiary deficiency resulted from a posttrial change in law rather than a failure to prove an element then required. The court vacated the prior order directing judgments of acquittal and remanded for a new trial on those indictments.