
739 N.W.2d 89 (2007)
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Maurice Lamont NYX, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 127897. COA No. 248094.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
October 5, 2007.
In this cause, a motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED.
CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in the denial of the motion for rehearing, but I write separately to clarify that double jeopardy principles do not bar the prosecutor from charging defendant with and retrying him for second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant may be retried for that offense because he successfully appealed his conviction and the reversal was not based on insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988).
WEAVER, J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J.
YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows:
I join in Justice Corrigan's concurrence in the denial of the appellant's motion for rehearing, as it is unnecessary for this Court to provide further explication on what is a bedrock double jeopardy principle. See United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896); Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103 (1919); Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 67 S.Ct. 374, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947); Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957); United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 84 S.Ct. 1587, 12 L.Ed.2d 448 (1964); United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978); Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982); Justices of Boston Muni. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984); Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400, 107 S.Ct. 1825, 95 L.Ed.2d 354 (1987); Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988); Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 118 S.Ct. 2246, 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998).
