has recently held that such double jeopardy protection is triggered by a jury verdict of acquittal even if the verdict was issued erroneously and the jury issued a new verdict within a matter of minutes. State v. Rodriguez, 2004-NMCA-125, ¶ 14, 136 N.M. 494, 100 P.3d 200, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-10, 136 N.M. 542, 101 P.3d 808 (explaining that the jury had been discharged after issuance of the verdict and the jury could have been subject to outside influences before being reassembled). After an acquittal, any type of fact-finding proceeding going to elements of the charged offense violates the federal double jeopardy clause. Smalis v. Pa., 476 U.S. 140, 142, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 90 L.Ed.2d 116 (1986); see Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 75, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has also instructed that
holding that no exceptions permit a retrial once the defendant is acquitted holding that when jury acquitted defendant on greater offense but deadlocked on lesserincluded offenses double jeopardy did not bar retrial of the lesers holding that when the jury acquitted the defendant on the greater offense but deadlocked on the lesserincluded offenses double jeopardy did not bar retrial of the lessers holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant holding sentencing courts may consider evidence of conduct or charges of which a defendant was acquitted