92 A.3d 351
Me.2014Background
- Johnson was charged with domestic violence assault in York County; trial began May 2013 after indictment in 2012.
- Prosecutor learned new victim statements at sidebar, including a knife-threat and a prior written statement; defense sought dismissal for discovery violation.
- Opening statement referenced head-banging incident not previously disclosed; defense objected; court ruled the knife-threat discovery issue could be addressed later but did not dismiss.
- Written victim statement discovered after opening; court excluded written and related last-minute oral disclosures; sanction imposed for discovery violation.
- Prosecutor referenced head-banging in opening; defense moved for mistrial; court granted mistrial after concluding not possible to cure prejudice.
- Trial court found manifest necessity for mistrial and allowed retrial; Johnson appealed arguing double jeopardy; court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy after mistrial with consent | Johnson consented to mistrial, removing double jeopardy barrier | Retrial should be barred by double jeopardy due to State's handling | Retrial allowed; consent removes barrier |
| Prosecutorial misconduct bar to retrial | Prosecutor's opening referencing head-banging constitutes misconduct | No misconduct; trial court not clearly erroneous | No prosecutorial misconduct bar; retrial permissible |
| Rowe applicability to the mistrial | Rowe requires dismissal when State's neglect caused mistrial | Rowe distinguishable; negligence not the sole cause | Rowe not controlling; distinctions apply |
| Impact of discovery violation on retrial | Late discovery prejudiced Johnson and forced mistrial | Prejudice not cured; but does not automatically bar retrial | Mistrial grounded in discovery issue; does not by itself bar retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chase, 2000 ME 114 (Me. 2000) (double jeopardy considerations for mistrial and retrial)
- State v. Carey, 2013 ME 83 (Me. 2013) (consent to mistrial can remove double jeopardy barrier if no prosecutorial misconduct)
- State v. Rowe, 480 A.2d 778 (Me. 1984) (State cannot rely on its own neglect to justify manifest necessity)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (non-testifying codefendant's confession implicating codefendant violates Sixth Amendment)