Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733

David Karl Graham was charged (2011) with multiple counts of aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and corruption of minors arising from alleged sexual abuse of his then-eight-year-old daughter; trial began April 3, 2013.
During the first trial, the victim’s mother (Wife) volunteered testimony implying another child (her son) was also involved; the victim later referenced concern for her daughter and nephew. Defense moved for mistrial and the court granted it.
Commonwealth promptly sought and was granted relisting for a new trial; Graham moved to dismiss all charges on double jeopardy grounds (May 2013).
Trial court held a hearing and denied the double jeopardy motion (Jan. 14, 2014); Graham appealed.
The appellate court reviewed whether the prosecutor intentionally elicited prejudicial testimony such that retrial is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause (and Pennsylvania’s Article I, §10).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor intentionally elicited testimony about uncharged misconduct so as to provoke mistrial or deny fair trial	Graham: prosecutor’s questioning/lines allowed testimony about other victims and was intentional misconduct barring retrial	Commonwealth: questioning was limited, did not prompt references to other victims, any disclosures were volunteered and not in bad faith	Held: No intentional prosecutorial misconduct; disclosures were volunteered or nonresponsive; retrial not barred
Whether double jeopardy prevents retrial after mistrial caused by prosecutorial misconduct	Graham: mistrial resulted from prosecutorial misconduct so retrial is barred under federal and PA constitutional protections	Commonwealth: retrial permissible absent intentional prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke mistrial or deny fair trial	Held: Double jeopardy does not bar retrial because prosecutor did not act intentionally to subvert the process

Commonwealth v. Kearns, 70 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and framework for double jeopardy claims arising from mistrial)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (Pennsylvania’s Article I, §10 bars retrial where prosecutor intentionally provokes mistrial or acts to deny fair trial)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 777 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2001) (prosecutorial misconduct defined; intentional subversion of court process can bar retrial)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 430 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. 1981) (enumerated factors for assessing prosecutor’s intent; not treated as mandatory test here)
Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (objection at trial required to preserve prosecutorial-misconduct claim)