Ex Parte Byrias Roberson
455 S.W.3d 257
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Byrias Roberson was tried for resisting arrest; jury was empaneled and sworn, but the trial was continued until the next day.
- Prosecutor’s investigator Donnie Cavinder spoke in the hallway with a woman who was a sworn juror (Juror Number Three / Eileen Vale) after voir dire; Cavinder said he mistakenly thought she was a released veniremember and denied discussing the case.
- Juror Three testified Cavinder asked about her game warden experience and said something like “you were struck, but then we got you on,” which she took as a case-related remark.
- Roberson moved for a mistrial; the trial judge granted it citing the appearance of improper influence but said he believed Cavinder’s mistake was honest.
- Roberson filed a pretrial habeas application arguing the State (through its investigator) goaded him into moving for a mistrial so retrial would violate double jeopardy; the trial court denied relief and this denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy because the prosecution goaded defendant into moving for a mistrial | Roberson: Cavinder’s hallway talk was purposeful or known to the prosecution and intended to induce a mistrial so the State could cure discovery/admissibility problems | State: Cavinder’s conduct was an honest mistake by an investigator; prosecutor promptly disclosed it to the court and did not intend to cause a mistrial | Court: No double jeopardy bar — record supports honest mistake and no intent to provoke a mistrial |
| Whether the prosecutor’s team knowledge is imputed to the prosecutor for double jeopardy analysis | Roberson: Investigator is part of prosecution team; his knowledge/intent imputable and shows purposeful conduct | State: Agrees knowledge is imputed but contends the investigator acted inadvertently and without intent to abort trial | Court: Imputation applies but facts do not show intentional misconduct by prosecution to abort trial |
| Whether conduct was an attempt to abort a trial the State feared losing | Roberson: Mistrial benefitted State by removing pretrial discovery/admissibility issues on extraneous acts | State: No evidence trial was going badly or that mistrial was sought to avoid acquittal; motion in limine had been granted and issues were uncertain | Court: No objective basis to conclude the State acted to avoid imminent acquittal; factor favors honest mistake |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying habeas relief | Roberson: Circumstantial evidence (timing, discovery failures, juror’s impression) supports finding of intent | State: Trial court credited the investigator’s and prosecutor’s good-faith explanations; appellate review defers to that factual finding | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only when prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
- Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (factors to assess whether prosecutorial misconduct was intentional)
- Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (clarifying requirement of intent for double jeopardy relief)
- Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (imputing knowledge of investigators to prosecutors)
- State v. Blackshere, 344 S.W.3d 400 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (jeopardy attaches when jury is empaneled and sworn)
- Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (prosecutorial concealment can in some circumstances justify double jeopardy relief)