State v. Dodge

Held that the defendant adequately preserved, for purposes of appellate review, his argument that his second trial violated his rights against double jeopardy. The defendant consistently argued that, because of the lack of specificity in both the indictment and the first trial, it would be impossible to determine the factual basis for any count, and, therefore, when the case was remanded after the first appeal, there was a risk that, if he was retried, he would be convicted based on incidents of which he had already been acquitted.