City of Billings Ex Rel. Huertas v. Billings Municipal Court, 2017 MT 261

Background

Defendant James Huertas was tried in Billings Municipal Court on a Partner or Family Member Assault charge; jury was impaneled and sworn and trial began on Jan. 20, 2017.
During the City’s case, the prosecution’s witness L.H. testified she had been served a subpoena the night before by Officer LaMantia and said the officer attempted to influence her to ensure Huertas would be punished.
The court questioned L.H. outside the jury’s presence; L.H.’s statements there were less accusatory and the judge concluded she was not improperly influenced, but repeatedly stated the jury might be "poisoned."
The City moved for a mistrial to investigate alleged witness tampering by its own officer; the judge declared a mistrial and reset the trial date despite available remedial measures and the City being responsible for its witness’s subpoena.
Huertas moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; Municipal Court denied the motion. The District Court declined relief, and the Montana Supreme Court accepted supervisory control.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held no "manifest necessity" supported the mistrial and Huertas did not acquiesce, and therefore retrial would violate double jeopardy; the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mistrial was justified by "manifest necessity" after jury heard witness say an officer tried to influence her	Huertas: No; mistrial was unnecessary because remedial measures (redirect, clarification before jury) were available and the City was not prejudiced sufficiently to warrant termination	City: Mistrial necessary to investigate alleged witness tampering by Officer LaMantia and because the jury was "poisoned" and the City was prejudiced	Held: No manifest necessity; judge abused discretion in declaring mistrial and available remedies could have addressed the statements
Whether retrial is allowed because defendant acquiesced (waived) right against retrial	Huertas: He did not acquiesce; neither he nor counsel affirmatively waived the right and counsel was repeatedly interrupted when attempting to object	City: Implied acquiescence or lack of objection permitted retrial	Held: No acquiescence; defendant did not affirmatively waive the right and was denied adequate opportunity to be heard
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after mistrial declared by court sua sponte or at prosecution request	Huertas: Retrial would violate Fifth Amendment and Mont. Const. protections because no manifest necessity and no waiver	City: Retrial permitted given the circumstances and need to investigate potential witness tampering	Held: Retrial barred; dismissal with prejudice because retrial would violate federal and state double jeopardy protections
Whether the District Court erred in denying pre-trial relief and requiring appeal after a second trial	Huertas: Pre-trial relief is required because double jeopardy protections must be enforced before a second trial occurs	City: Appeal after trial is adequate remedy	Held: Supreme Court exercised supervisory control consistent with Keating — pre-trial relief was appropriate to prevent the constitutional harm of a second trial

Key Cases Cited

Keating v. Sherlock, 278 Mont. 218, 924 P.2d 1297 (1996) (supervisory control appropriate to prevent double jeopardy before second trial)
State v. Carney, 219 Mont. 412, 714 P.2d 532 (1986) ("manifest necessity" standard and degree-based analysis for mistrials)
State v. Cates, 350 Mont. 38, 204 P.3d 1224 (2009) (acquiescence/waiver analysis and review of mistrial declarations)
United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976) (double jeopardy protects right to have trial completed by particular tribunal)
Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949) (manifest necessity concept for terminating trials)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (spectrum of scrutiny for mistrial justifications; strict scrutiny when prosecution-produced prejudice)