The court found it would be a violation of double jeopardy to permit a second prosecution of the defendant, because further prosecution was barred by collateral estoppel. The first indictment charged him with one of nine arsons occurring over a one-year period. A court found him not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the offense charged and “for a period thereafter.” Mental health experts agreed that defendant suffered from delusions which prevented him from understanding the wrongfulness of his acts. The stipulation submitted in the first prosecution listed all nine arsons, and it was clear from the record that the parties did not anticipate any further proceedings at the time of the stipulation and first trial. Through an unusual and unexpected combination of circumstances, defendant was never committed and was unconditionally released. The prosecution then attempted to prosecute him for one of the other arsons. Collateral estoppel barred further prosecution because the issues were similar, were fully litigated and were necessarily decided. There was no basis in the record to believe appellant’s mental state was different during the relevant time span. The only evidence of a change in mental status was after he had been taken into custody and medicated.