People v. Kimble
2017 IL App (2d) 160087
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant David Kimble was tried for four counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving a child; trial lasted three days and centered on the victim’s credibility.
- The jury began deliberating, replayed a videotaped interview, and after intermittent deliberations the foreman sent a note saying the jury was at an "impasse" after about five hours.
- The judge, without notifying counsel, had earlier instructed the bailiff to tell the jury to "continue to deliberate." That ex parte contact was later disclosed to counsel.
- Both prosecution and defense asked the court to give the Prim deadlocked-jury instruction and to reconvene the next day; the judge refused, said giving Prim would be “futile,” and sua sponte declared a mistrial.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, holding reprosecution barred because the judge’s ex parte communication and failure to consider Prim constituted judicial indiscretion and not manifest necessity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant consented or acquiesced to the mistrial | State: defendant failed to contemporaneously object and thus acquiesced | Kimble: counsel repeatedly requested Prim and return-to-deliberate; that showed demand to continue, not consent to mistrial | Court: Defendant did not consent; his repeated, forceful requests to continue preserved his double-jeopardy claim |
| Whether mistrial was justified by "manifest necessity" (deadlocked jury) | State: jury was hopelessly deadlocked after hours of deliberation, justifying mistrial | Kimble: judge’s ex parte direction to "continue" deprived defense of participation and led to premature mistrial; alternatives (Prim, reconvening) available | Court: No manifest necessity; judicial indiscretion (ex parte contact and refusal to give Prim) caused mistrial, so reprosecution is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (double-jeopardy clause applies to the states)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (retrial after mistrial allowed only for "manifest necessity")
- United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (mistrial inappropriate where judge fails to consider less drastic alternatives)
- People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62 (1972) (approved deadlocked-jury instruction to guide continued deliberations)
- People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324 (1985) (trial court discretion on when to give Prim; guidance required when jury struggles)
- People v. Bagley, 338 Ill. App. 3d 978 (2003) (defense counsel’s forceful argument to continue can preserve double-jeopardy claim)