Ex Parte Rodriguez, 366 S.W.3d 291

Appellant Eric Dean Rodriguez was charged with a first-degree felony aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Trial began July 13, 2010, with issues arising over admission of seven photographs and delayed discovery of SANE photographs.
Prosecution had possessed the photographs for months but failed to disclose them until a week before trial; defense had not seen them until trial morning.
The trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial due to the State's failure to timely disclose the evidence, citing the need to allow defense expert review and potential continuance.
Neither side objected to the mistrial; later, defense counsel alleged double jeopardy and sought habeas relief; the trial court denied relief, and appeal followed.
On review, the court assesses whether manifest necessity justified the mistrial and whether double jeopardy bars retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the mistrial justified by manifest necessity?	Rodriguez contends no manifest necessity; less drastic options existed.	State argues manifest necessity due to inability to proceed without undisclosed evidence and potential delays.	Yes; mistrial affirmed due to manifest necessity.
Did Rodriguez preserve the error or consent to the mistrial?	Rodriguez preserved error by timely objection and did not consent.	State asserts failure to object equates to consent; error preservation lacking.	Issue overruled; record supports manifest necessity despite preservation concerns.

Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d 903 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (mistrial and manifest-necessity standards in pretrial double jeopardy review)
Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (standard of review depending on basis for mistrial; deference vs. strict scrutiny)
Ex parte Fierro, 79 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (manifest-necessity framework for mistrial)
Brown v. State, 907 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (proper considerations for manifest necessity and discretion)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (deferential standard in habeas review of mistrial rulings)
United States v. Stevens, 177 F.3d 579 (6th Cir.1999) (considerations for evaluating manifest necessity in mistrial decisions)
Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d 903 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (clarifies standard for double jeopardy relief in pretrial habeas corpus)
United States v. Fisher, 624 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.2010) (dynamic standard of review based on cause of mistrial)