Com. v. Stokes, P.
551 WDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 25, 2017Background
- Patrick E. Stokes was charged with terroristic threats (later amended to harassment) and summary offenses arising from a courthouse encounter after a custody hearing on July 28, 2016.
- Stokes had a recent guilty plea for endangering the welfare of a child (and related offenses) from December 2015; the custody hearing addressed whether he was a danger to his child.
- At his January 11, 2017 trial the Commonwealth rested and Stokes testified; during cross-examination the prosecutor asked about the reason for the custody hearing and elicited testimony referencing Stokes’ prior criminal charges.
- The trial court declared a mistrial after the testimony about prior convictions was elicited; Stokes moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the prosecutor intentionally provoked a mistrial by eliciting the conviction evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Stokes appealed. The Superior Court reviewed whether prosecutorial conduct was so egregious and intentional as to bar retrial under federal and Pennsylvania double jeopardy protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy due to prosecutorial misconduct that prompted a mistrial | Stokes: prosecutor intentionally elicited testimony about prior conviction to provoke mistrial and deprive him of a fair trial | Commonwealth: prosecutor’s questioning was a mistaken or reckless misapprehension of the court’s ruling, not an intent to provoke mistrial | Denied — retrial not barred; prosecutor’s conduct was reckless/misguided but not intentionally aimed at provoking mistrial or pervasive enough to violate double jeopardy |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (Pennsylvania Constitution bars retrial where prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial or intentionally acted to deprive defendant of a fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Martorano, 741 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 1999) (egregious, pervasive prosecutorial bad faith throughout trial can bar retrial under state double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Minnis, 83 A.3d 1047 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishes conduct warranting new trial from conduct so egregious and pervasive as to bar retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Barber, 940 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2007) (order denying dismissal on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable)