DWI on the basis of the breath score, not on the basis of the refusal, although I do think that alternatively that could have been ither a judgment of guilt on aggravated DWI nor a sentence for that charge. This order, therefore, did not impose a deferred sentence upon Defendant and the trial court was free to impose any authorized sentence, including the forty-eight consecutive hours of confinement, on June 6, 2003. Oral Rulings of Acquittal Are Not Binding {23} Defendant next contends that an oral ruling going to guilt or innocence should be binding because its constitutional gravity is greater than an oral ruling regarding sentencing. He directs us to out-of-state authority holding that oral rulings can terminate jeopardy. See Lowe v. State, 242 Kan. 64, 744 P.2d 856, 857-58 (1987) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Wash., 48 F.3d 73,
holding that the greater offense is  by definition the same for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it holding that a sua sponte dismissal of the charges during trial was not an acquittal that barred retrial based on double jeopardy holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that an oral acquittal terminates jeopardy and bars any further action for that offense holding that oral discharge of jury terminated jeopardy