318 Ga. App. 720
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- McCabe was tried for DUI; the trial court declared a mistrial over defense objections regarding closing arguments.
- McCabe filed a plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds seeking dismissal of the accusation; the trial court denied it.
- Defense sought to introduce and discuss certain certificate of inspection documents and machine history; the court admitted some exhibits and excluded others.
- Defense argued the Intoxilyzer 5000 had a problematic history and that the machine’s later repairs and tests were relevant.
- The judge ultimately granted a mistrial due to defense misconduct and the prejudicial impact of comments accusing the state of hiding evidence.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding manifest necessity for the mistrial and that the double jeopardy plea was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there manifest necessity for mistrial? | McCabe argues lack of manifest necessity; rights not subordinate to public interest. | State contends prejudicial closing required mistrial to preserve substantial justice. | Yes; manifest necessity supported mistrial. |
| Should the double jeopardy plea have been granted? | McCabe asserts improper retrial barred by double jeopardy despite mistrial. | State maintains trial court properly found manifest necessity justifying mistrial and retrial. | No error; denial of plea in bar affirmed. |
| Did admissibility rulings and curative measures affect the mistrial ruling? | McCabe contends curative instructions could cure any prejudice. | State argues misconduct and prejudicial comments could not be cured by instructions. | Rulings and curative measures supported mistrial necessity. |
| What standard governs appellate review of the mistrial/jeopardy ruling? | McCabe seeks standard of review favoring defendant. | State cites deferential review of trial court’s manifest-necessity finding. | Appellate review defers to trial court’s findings; standard satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 288 Ga. 7, 8 (2010) (discusses double jeopardy and mistrial standards in Georgia)
- Bruce v. State, 302 Ga. App. 810 (2010) (punctuation and footnotes omitted; addresses admissibility and relevance)
- Wilson v. State, 229 Ga. App. 455 (1997) (cited for general doctrine on evidence relevance and prejudicial impact)
- Knapp v. State, 229 Ga.App. 175 (1997) (machine malfunction evidence and relevance of operating condition)