Gabriel Eliajah Montoya v. State, 386 P.3d 344

Gabriel Eliajah Montoya was charged with felony stalking and tried by jury; after deliberations began the jury asked about an extra document (victim’s stalking protection petition) that appeared in the jury room.
The district court suspected the document had been inadvertently given to the jury with State’s Exhibit 1 after witness testimony; the prosecutor acknowledged the document was delivered to the witness stand unintentionally.
Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, stating the jury had been exposed to prejudicial material that could not be ‘‘unring[ed]’’; the court granted the mistrial and the State re-filed charges.
Before the second trial Montoya moved to dismiss on grounds of tainted witnesses but did not raise double jeopardy; the motion was denied and a second jury convicted him of felony stalking.
On appeal Montoya argued the second trial violated double jeopardy because the prosecutor provoked the mistrial; the Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the claim for plain error because Montoya had not raised double jeopardy below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retrial after a defense‑motion mistrial violated double jeopardy	Montoya: Prosecutor’s delivery of the document forced him to move for mistrial, so retrial is barred	State: No evidence prosecutor intended to ‘‘goad’’ defendant; incident was inadvertent or negligent	No double jeopardy violation; no plain error—no evidence of prosecutorial intent to provoke mistrial

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (establishes that double jeopardy bars retrial only where prosecutor intended to ‘‘goad’’ defendant into moving for mistrial)
State v. Newman, 88 P.3d 445 (Wyo. 2004) (defendant may show retrial barred if prosecution intended to provoke mistrial)
United States v. Tafoya, 557 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2009) (prosecutorial negligence insufficient for Kennedy goading exception)
United States v. Powell, 982 F.2d 1422 (10th Cir. 1992) (carelessness/mistake by prosecution does not bar retrial)
Derrera v. State, 327 P.3d 107 (Wyo. 2014) (interpretation that Wyoming and federal double jeopardy protections are coextensive)