The clause found in Amendment V of the federal constitution and in the constitutions of the various states, that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, is merely a partial statement of a common-law principle that no one shall be twice tried for the same offence. As found in the federal constitution the clause is of extremely limited application, and strictly interpreted relates only to crimes which may be punished by death, for maiming as a form of punishment has never been recognized in this country. But similar provisions in the state constitutions go to the full extent of prohibiting a second trial for an offence for which the same person has previously been put on trial.

The usual application of this rule is in cases where the accused has been acquitted by a jury; and such acquittal is conclusive, not only as to the crime charged, but as to any other crime involving the same acts which were depended upon or sought to be established in the first trial for the purpose of securing a conviction. No matter how unwarrantable under the evidence may be the action of the jury, and no matter how erroneous may have been the procedure in the court, the verdict of the jury acquitting the accused is final. But if the accused is convicted and the conviction is set aside for some error of the court or misconduct of the jury, the accused who has procured the hostile verdict to be thus set aside may be again put on trial, although, as held by some courts, he cannot be again tried for any higher crime or higher degree of crime charged than that for which he was convicted, the conviction of the lesser crime or lower degree being deemed an acquittal of any higher crime or higher degree of crime (Kring v. Missouri). The constitutional provision also prevents a second trial for a crime which involves any criminal act for which the accused has been convicted on a previous trial.

It is not practicable to discuss in full the doctrine of second jeopardy as applied to cases where a prosecution has been duly commenced, and for some reason has never proceeded to the verdict of a jury. It is sufficient to say that if the defendant by escaping from custody or otherwise has prevented the trial of the case, or if by reason of sickness of the judge or inability of the jury to agree no verdict has been reached, the accused may be again put on trial.