People v. Prince

Supreme Court of Illinois · 2023 · Criminal Law

220 N.E.3d 1013

Updated July 19, 2026

crimlawdouble jeopardyobstruction of justiceinsufficient evidencetrial errorfalse informationmaterial impedimentretrial barred

Facts

After defendant was arrested and taken to the Romeoville police station, he told police his name was Sean Williams and gave an incorrect birth date. Officers ran that information through LEADS and found no match, while another officer had determined defendant's real name from social media and learned of an active Du Page County warrant. Defendant initially refused fingerprinting and a booking photo but later consented; at trial, the State introduced no evidence addressing whether the false information materially impeded the police. No trial ruling barred the parties from presenting evidence on material impediment.

Issue

When a conviction for obstruction of justice is reversed because the State failed to prove the material-impediment element, does the double jeopardy clause permit remand for a new trial where no trial court ruling prevented the State from introducing such evidence? More broadly, does Casler allow retrial in these circumstances?

Rule

If a reviewing court finds the evidence legally insufficient, double jeopardy bars retrial. A remand for new trial is permitted only when the reversal is for trial error, including a trial restriction akin to trial error that prevented the State from introducing evidence; Casler's remand rationale must be read narrowly to apply to cases in which the trial court erroneously barred evidence on the essential element.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, Illinois, Dana Mercer was convicted of obstructing justice by giving officers a false address during booking. At trial, the judge imposed no limits on proof, but the prosecutor presented no evidence that the false address actually hindered any authorized police act. The appellate court reverses for legally insufficient evidence on that element.

What is the proper disposition regarding retrial?

Explanation. When a reviewing court finds the evidence legally insufficient, double jeopardy bars a second trial. A new trial is allowed only when the deficiency resulted from trial error, or a trial restriction akin to trial error, that prevented the State from presenting the missing proof. Here, the State simply failed to prove the element despite having the opportunity to do so. (Derived from People v. Prince (n.d.).)