People v. Threatte, 82 N.E.3d 848

Defendant Michael Threatte was tried for domestic battery; a jury was impaneled and sworn and opening statements occurred.
Midway through the State’s direct examination, prosecutor Britta Girmscheid became ill and asked for a recess; court adjourned for the day.
The next day Girmscheid was absent; two other prosecutors (DeRue and Tyler) were present but said they were not prepared to take over. Defense opposed any continuance.
The trial court considered short continuance options but, citing juror inconvenience and uncertainty about prosecutor availability, denied continuances and declared a mistrial over Threatte’s objection.
Threatte moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Threatte argued the mistrial lacked manifest necessity because other prosecutors could have continued the trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mistrial (declared when the prosecutor fell ill) violated double jeopardy	State: court properly balanced juror convenience, case management, and lack of ready replacement prosecutor; mistrial was necessary	Threatte: no manifest necessity; short continuance or another prosecutor could have finished the trial	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court considered alternatives and mistrial was justified

People v. Bagley, 338 Ill. App. 3d 978 (1998) (double-jeopardy principles and State should not get multiple attempts to convict)
People v. Dahlberg, 355 Ill. App. 3d 308 (2005) (reprosecution allowed only if mistrial was consented to by defendant or warranted by manifest necessity)
People v. Street, 316 Ill. App. 3d 205 (2000) (factors to consider when assessing manifest necessity for mistrial)
Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426 (2001) (appellant bears burden to present complete record; absent record, trial court's order presumed correct)
People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309 (2003) (invited error doctrine prevents party from taking one position at trial and arguing contrary on appeal)