322 P.3d 739
Utah2014Background
- Manatau beat his wife on May 24, 2009, and the police responded after he pursued her through multiple residences.
- The State charged him with aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, burglary, criminal mischief, and reckless endangerment.
- During trial, security concerns arose when a pocket knife was found in his wife's suit jacket; the wife was removed from the courtroom.
- On day two, the court allowed the wife to reenter under heightened security after argument about search and monitoring.
- The judge sua sponte recused herself and declared a mistrial, citing emotional impact from the knife incident.
- Both sides objected to the mistrial; the court initially stated jeopardy did not attach, then reassigned for retrial under a new judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy after a mistrial ordered sua sponte | State contends legal necessity justified mistrial to preserve justice | Manatau argues mistrial lacked necessity and thus was an acquittal | Utah double jeopardy bars retrial; mistrial not legally necessary |
| Whether the initial trial court properly considered alternatives to a mistrial and created an adequate record | State asserts trial court had basis to declare mistrial due to impartiality and security concerns | Manatau asserts record insufficient to justify mistrial and that alternatives were not considered | Record lacked alternatives; mistrial not supported; retrial barred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 2004 UT 103 (Utah) (two-step test for legal necessity and record requirements for mistrial)
- Ambrose, 598 P.2d 351 (Utah 1979) (defendant need not prove mistrial necessity when defendant objects; burden on court/State)
- Whitman, 74 P.2d 696 (Utah 1937) (mistrial before verdict generally operates as acquittal)
- W. Valley City v. Patten, 1999 UT App 149 (Utah App. 1999) (absence of record requires resolving uncertainties in defendant's favor)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (1824) (reiterates strong preference to dismiss only under urgent circumstances)