Evans, therefore, the State had the right to appeal the trial court’s JNOV ruling as the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial for insufficient evidence. Importantly, our holding in no way runs afoul of double jeopardy principles. Double jeopardy “protects against successive prosecutions for the ‘same offense’ following acquittal_” State v. Houth, 845 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). This means that a verdict of acquittal may not be reviewed “regardless of how egregiously wrong the verdict may be.” State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 332 n. 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). As the Court of Appeals noted, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the appeal-ability of post-verdict judgments. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 336, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1018, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s JNOV ruling in the case at
holding that double jeopardy does not bar reprosecution of an accused who refuses to perform a condition of his guilty plea holding double jeopardy does not bar second trial after granting of new trial for reason other than insufficiency of evidence holding that double jeopardy does not bar the prosecutions appeal of a trial courts ruling which overturns a jurys guilty verdict holding that the government may appeal a postverdict ruling without violating double jeopardy where the appeal does not result in a new trial holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted