Com. v. Lee, S.
464 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- Shawn Edward Lee was on trial for homicide; on the third day a Commonwealth witness (Lee’s girlfriend) inadvertently testified she saw Lee after he got out of prison.
- Defense counsel stood and said “Your Honor” immediately after the statement; the trial judge replied “Granted,” declared a mistrial sua sponte, cleared the jury, and did not permit counsel to address the court before releasing the jury.
- Defense objected after the jury was excused and moved to dismiss and bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds; the court denied the motion and later entered post hoc findings invoking manifest necessity.
- The Superior Court remanded for the trial court to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) and to file findings; the trial court later issued findings asserting manifest necessity and that defense had waived objection.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by declaring a mistrial sua sponte without manifest necessity and whether Lee waived his double jeopardy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Lee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly declared a mistrial sua sponte after an inadvertent reference to prior incarceration (manifest necessity) | Single reference to incarceration can be fatal; judge reasonably concluded prejudice and manifest necessity | Trial court failed to consider less drastic alternatives, did not consult counsel, and a curative instruction could have sufficed | Reversed — mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity; trial court abused discretion and double jeopardy bars retrial |
| Whether Lee waived his double jeopardy claim by failing to object immediately | Court asserted Lee acquiesced and thus waived objection | Defense lacked opportunity to object before jury was excused and raised objection as soon as practicable; waiver not established | No waiver — objection was timely under circumstances; double jeopardy claim preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. United States, 22 U.S. 579 (1824) (classic articulation of "manifest necessity" standard for mistrials)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (review standards and limits on deference to trial judge's mistrial decision)
- Jorn v. United States, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (limits on mistrial power and need for reasoned exercise of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Diehl, 615 A.2d 690 (Pa. 1992) (trial court must consider alternatives before sua sponte mistrial; failure may bar retrial)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Walton v. Aytch, 352 A.2d 4 (Pa. 1976) (failure to consult parties before aborting trial undermines manifest necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Bartolomucci, 362 A.2d 234 (Pa. 1976) (trial court should inquire into jury deadlock; failure to investigate can make mistrial non-manifestly necessary)