With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to be true by the first jury. When a jury acquits a person of one offense but finds the person guilty of a lesser-included offense, and the verdict is overturned or a new trial granted for a reason other than insufficiency of the evidence, double-jeopardy principles do not bar a second prosecution for the lesser-included offense. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957), cited in Stine v. State, 935 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, pet. refd) (first verdict overturned on appeal for jurisdictional er ror); Konchar v. State, 938 S.W.2d 500, 502 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, no pet.) (new trial granted based on procedural error); see also Ex parte Queen, 877 S.W.2d 752, 754-55 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (citing Lofton v. State, 111 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (<HOLDING>)). Because the homicide offenses were either

A: holding double jeopardy does not bar second trial after granting of new trial for reason other than insufficiency of evidence
B: holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient
C: holding that remand for new trial is remedy for factual insufficiency of evidence
D: holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial
A.