Ex Parte Coleman
350 S.W.3d 155
Tex. App.2011Background
- Two indictments against Coleman charged multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child; trials were consolidated but mistrial declared at Coleman’s request due to prosecutor misconduct during testimony from defense witness Colleen Coleman.
- Colleen Coleman testified about CPS opinions; prosecutors questioned about forensic interviews used by CPS; defense objected under Rules 401/403 and Crawford rights.
- Trial court allowed limited questions about forensic interviews but barred substantive questions without producing the examiner; prosecutor continued questioning; court instructed to disregard improper comments.
- Mistrial granted after lunch recess; retrial date set; Coleman filed habeas corpus petitions arguing double jeopardy if retrial occurred due to prosecutorial misconduct intent.
- Trial court denied habeas relief, concluding no evidence of prosecutorial intent to taint the trial; Coleman appealed to Texas Court of Appeals (San Antonio).
- Court affirms trial court, holding that Coleman failed to prove prosecutorial intent to provoke mistrial and that Kennedy/Oregon v. Kennedy standard governs double jeopardy in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy when mistrial was defense-requested due to prosecutorial misconduct | Coleman argues misconduct aimed to provoke mistrial to corrupt retrial. | State contends no proof of intent to provoke mistrial; misconduct remedied by mistrial. | Retrial not barred; no proof of intent to provoke mistrial. |
| Whether Oregon v. Kennedy standard applies to Texas double jeopardy claims under the Texas Constitution as adopted in Lewis | Coleman relies on Kennedy standard for intent to provoke mistrial. | State argues Kennedy standard applies under Lewis; narrow exception remains controlling. | Kennedy standard applies; narrow exception governs. |
| Whether the record supports a finding that the prosecutor intentionally tainted the trial to avoid acquittal | Coleman asserts purposeful conduct to taint trial. | State asserts conduct was not intentional to taint and was a response to defense actions. | Record insufficient to prove intentional taint; no double jeopardy bar. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying habeas relief based on prosecutorial misconduct | Coleman contends abuse of discretion due to intentional misconduct. | State maintains ruling consistent with Kennedy standard and record. | No abuse; standard applied correctly; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (applies Oregon v. Kennedy standard to Texas double jeopardy claims)
- Ex parte Masonheimer, 220 S.W.3d 494 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (Kennedy-based review; intent to avoid acquittal bars retrial when prosecutorial conduct is deliberate)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (narrow exception to double jeopardy; intent to provoke mistrial required)
- Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (burden on applicant to prove allegations by preponderance; record required)
- Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (prosecutor may not reference outside-record in argument; must rely on admitted evidence)