People v. Threatte
2017 IL App (2d) 160161
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Threatte was tried on a domestic battery charge; a jury was impaneled and sworn and openings were completed.
- During the State’s direct examination on day two, prosecutor Britta Girmscheid became ill and could not continue; the court adjourned that day.
- The next day Girmscheid remained absent; other prosecutors (DeRue and Tyler) were present but said they were not prepared to take over the trial.
- The court considered alternatives (short continuance, 24‑hour continuance, replacement prosecutor) and declined to continue, then declared a mistrial over Threatte’s objection.
- Threatte moved to dismiss on double‑jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion. He appealed, arguing no manifest necessity for a mistrial existed because other prosecutors could have continued the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reprosecution is barred by double jeopardy after the court declared a mistrial when the prosecutor became ill mid‑trial | State: mistrial was supported by manifest necessity because other prosecutors were unprepared and continuances were impractical | Threatte: court should have granted at least a short continuance or allowed another prosecutor to finish, so mistrial was unnecessary | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion; manifest necessity existed given the circumstances and the court’s consideration of alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bagley, 338 Ill. App. 3d 978 (Ill. App. Ct.) (double jeopardy principles and reprosecution after mistrial)
- People v. Dahlberg, 355 Ill. App. 3d 308 (Ill. App. Ct.) (retrial after court‑declared mistrial permissible only for manifest necessity)
- People v. Street, 316 Ill. App. 3d 205 (Ill. App. Ct.) (factors to balance in assessing manifest necessity)
- State v. Anderson, 988 A.2d 276 (Conn. 2010) (prosecutor illness mid‑trial can justify mistrial when no ready replacement exists)
- People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309 (Ill.) (doctrine of invited error prevents a party from opposing a course at trial and then challenging it on appeal)
- Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426 (Ill.) (appellant’s burden to present a complete record; absent it, courts presume correctness of trial court’s actions)