Simmons v. State, 81 A.3d 383

Simmons charged with murder in Prince George’s County based on a deadly shooting after a dispute; during interrogation he offered to take a polygraph but no test was performed.
Defense opened by noting Simmons’ lengthy, harsh interrogation and his claimed innocence, including a reference to his willingness to take a lie detector test.
The court sustained a prosecutorial objection to the polygraph reference and gave an immediate curative instruction informing jurors not to consider it.
Two days later the State moved for a mistrial, arguing the improper reference prejudiced the jury beyond cure by instructions.
The trial court granted a mistrial over Simmons’s objection; retrial was later pursued; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the mistrial ruling, and the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to assess manifest necessity.
Double jeopardy defense followed; the question centered on whether manifest necessity justified a mistrial after an improper opening statement with a curative instruction and subsequent delay in seeking mistrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there manifest necessity to declare a mistrial despite a curative instruction?	Simmons argues the curative instruction cured prejudice.	State contends prejudice was not cured; mistrial necessary.	Yes; manifest necessity supported mistrial; curative instruction inadequate.
Does double jeopardy bar retrial after a mistrial granted for manifest necessity?	Retrial should be barred if double jeopardy applies.	Retrial permitted where manifest necessity exists.	No; retrial allowed where manifest necessity shown.
What standard governs review of the trial court’s manifest-necessity finding?	Appeals should strictly police the trial court’s reasoning.	Abuse-of-discretion review is appropriate given trial context.	Abuse of discretion standard governs manifest-necessity rulings.

Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (high burden for manifest necessity; curative actions may not erase prejudice)
Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (same as above; emphasized respect for trial court’s assessment of prejudice)
Hubbard v. State, 395 Md. 73 (Md. 2006) (reasonable alternatives to mistrial must be considered)
Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574 (Md. 2001) (curative instructions must be timely, accurate, and effective)
Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587 (Md. 1989) (polygraph reference inadmissible; prejudice assessment factors)
Guesfeird v. State, 300 Md. 653 (Md. 1984) (factors for prejudice from improper lie-detector references)
Johnson v. State, 31 Md. App. 303 (Md. 1976) (distinguishes polygraph admissibility context)
State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270 (Md. 1992) (polygraph references are prejudicial; strong policy against polygraphs)
Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044 (U.S. 2012) (manifests the non-mechanical approach to manifest necessity)