State v. Anderson (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 74
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Christopher Anderson was indicted for murder in 2002 after DNA linked him to the victim; multiple trials and appeals followed over 14 years.
- First trial (2003) ended in mistrial after prohibited testimony about a prior incident; second trial resulted in conviction, later reversed on appeal for improperly admitted evidence.
- Subsequent trials (third and fourth) ended in mistrials due to hung juries; additional voir dire disruption required reseating a venire.
- Anderson remained incarcerated throughout because he could not post bond.
- He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing repeated retrials over many years violated Due Process and Double Jeopardy; trial court denied relief and appeals followed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Due Process (federal/Ohio) prohibits repeated retrials that "wear down" a defendant over many years | Anderson: cumulative effect of reversal plus multiple mistrials and long incarceration violates "fundamental fairness" and bars retrial | State: where specific Double Jeopardy protections apply, Due Process is not the controlling standard; retrial after proper mistrials is permissible | Court: Due Process is not the appropriate framework when the Double Jeopardy Clause applies; retrial after properly declared mistrials is not barred |
| Whether Double Jeopardy bars retrial after reversal on appeal plus multiple mistrials | Anderson: cumulative circumstances trigger double-jeopardy-type protection | State: Double Jeopardy does not bar retrial when mistrials were properly declared and reversal on appeal is not a final acquittal | Court: Double Jeopardy protects only final acquittal/conviction or mistrials procured by prosecutorial misconduct; no finality here, so retrial is permitted |
| Whether prosecutorial or judicial misconduct tainted mistrials so as to bar retrial | Anderson: implied unfairness from repeated trials | State: no record evidence of prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke mistrials | Court: No evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or abuse of discretion in declaring mistrials; retrial not barred |
| Whether Ohio Constitution affords greater protection than federal law in this context | Anderson: sought broader due-process protection under Ohio Constitution | State/majority: Ohio clauses are coextensive with federal protections for this issue | Held (majority): Ohio Due Course of Law Clause coextensive with Fourteenth Amendment; no broader protection applied (concurring justice disagreed and would recognize potential greater state protection) |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (retrial after mistrial permissible absent prosecutorial misconduct)
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (Due Process does not provide greater double-jeopardy protection than the Double Jeopardy Clause)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (where specific constitutional provision applies, it controls analysis over general substantive due process)
- Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (substantive due process is narrowly construed)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (double jeopardy bars retrial when prosecutor acts to "goad" defendant into mistrial)
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (prosecution or judge cannot discontinue trial to subject defendant to second prosecution)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (9 Wheat.) (court may discharge a jury for manifest necessity; mistrial without finality permits retrial)
- United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 (Double Jeopardy does not bar retrial after reversal on appeal)
- State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (Ohio and federal Double Jeopardy Clauses are coextensive)