Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania err in finding that the reinstatement of Murder in the Third Degree upon the award of a new trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, where the verdict for this offense was not guilty in the first trial, but Respondent Landis was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and the proposed charge is a lesser included offense, contrary to relevant precedent established by this Honorable Court in Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 611-612 (2012) and Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania err in finding that the reinstatement of Murder in the Third Degree upon the award of a new trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, where the verdict for this offense was not guilty in the first trial, but Respondent Landis was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and the proposed charge is a lesser included offense, contrary to relevant precedent established by this Honorable Court in Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 611-612 (2012) and Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986)? Answered in the negative by the court below. Suggested Answer: Yes. Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania err in finding that the intention of presenting a defense of diminished capacity by voluntary intoxication upon retrial, which under Pennsylvania law reduces the mens rea from Murder in the First Degree to Murder in the Third Degree, effectively waives any claim to double jeopardy protection for the reinstatement of the charge of Murder in the Third Degree? Question posed but not answered by the court below. Suggested Answer: Yes