Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 158 A.3d 1287

On Oct. 16, 2014, Jamia Williams reported that Danielle Baldwin pointed a gun at her from Baldwin’s home; police arrested Baldwin and recovered a firearm after a warrantless search following her arrest.
Baldwin moved to suppress the firearm as the product of involuntary consent (officers had not given Miranda warnings); Municipal Court granted the suppression on Feb. 11, 2015.
Trial began immediately after the suppression ruling; the judge warned attorneys to inform witnesses about the suppression ruling and sequestrated witnesses.
On direct, Commonwealth witness Williams testified that Baldwin pointed a gun at her (an event that occurred before police arrived). Defense objected; the court sustained the objection and, after defense moved, declared a mistrial and stated a judgment of acquittal.
The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the acquittal and remanded for retrial. Baldwin appealed to the Superior Court arguing retrial is barred by double jeopardy because the Municipal Court’s action was an acquittal or, alternatively, the mistrial was caused by prosecutorial misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Baldwin)	Held
Whether the Municipal Court’s post-objection ruling was an acquittal barring appeal	The ruling was not an acquittal; the Commonwealth may challenge the court’s action	The Municipal Court entered a judgment of acquittal; double jeopardy bars appeal and retrial	The Superior Court held it was a mistrial, not an acquittal; Commonwealth may appeal
Whether the Commonwealth may appeal a trial court judgment that functionally acquits	N/A (court addressed classification and appealability)	Government cannot appeal acquittals; categorical bar	Court rejected Baldwin’s premise because no factual resolution on guilt occurred, so appeal permissible
Whether retrial is barred because prosecutorial misconduct caused the mistrial	Prosecutor did not commit misconduct; testimony described pre-police conduct and was outside suppression scope	Commonwealth intentionally elicited suppressed evidence to provoke mistrial; retrial barred	Testimony described pre-search observation; no misconduct; mistrial (moved for by defense) does not bar retrial
Whether the Municipal Court’s warning to inform witnesses created an enforceable broader suppression scope	N/A	Court’s admonition meant Commonwealth was bound and intentional elicitation violated court order	Court of Common Pleas and Superior Court held the suppression order did not bar civilian eyewitness testimony; admonition did not convert the scope into an acquittal-inducing prohibition

Commonwealth v. Hallman, 67 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for double jeopardy questions)
Commonwealth v. Vogel, 461 A.2d 604 (Pa. 1983) (double jeopardy protects against retrial after clear failure of prosecution)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (retrial barred where insufficiency of evidence is shown)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1957) (protection against repeated prosecutions)
Commonwealth v. Maurizio, 437 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 1981) (Commonwealth cannot appeal from acquittal)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978) (limits on appeal after acquittal)
Commonwealth v. McDonough, 621 A.2d 569 (Pa. 1993) (substance, not label, determines acquittal)
Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2016) (mistrial standard and abuse of discretion review)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (retrial barred when prosecutor intentionally provokes mistrial or denies fair trial)
Commonwealth v. Moyer, 954 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2008) (suppression remedy limited to fruits of invalid consent)
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 797 A.2d 925 (Pa. Super. 2002) (sua sponte mistrial without manifest necessity bars retrial)
Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733 (Pa. Super. 2015) (retrial ordinarily permitted when defendant moves for mistrial unless induced by prosecution)