State v. Bedolla, 905 N.W.2d 629

In 2015 the State charged Luis Bedolla with multiple counts of child sexual assault, including one count of first-degree sexual assault alleging the offense occurred between Feb. 17, 2009 and Feb. 17, 2011.
Victim C.Z.-M. (born Feb. 1999) testified to a series of incidents spanning many years, including testimony describing penetration when she was as young as five or six (around 2003–2004).
The trial court’s jury instruction mirrored the information’s 2009–2011 date range; neither party objected at the instruction conference.
After closing arguments and during deliberations the jury asked why the first-degree count was limited to a two-year period; the State moved to amend the information and the instruction to expand the charged timeframe to 2003–2011 to conform to the evidence.
The court granted the State’s motion, reinstructed the jury, and shortly thereafter Bedolla moved for a mistrial (arguing prejudice from the late amendment); the court granted the mistrial.
Bedolla filed a plea in bar asserting retrial would violate double jeopardy because the State’s mid-deliberation amendment created the need for the mistrial; the district court denied the plea and the denial was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after a mistrial granted on defendant's motion where the prosecution moved mid-deliberation to amend the information and instruction	Bedolla: The State’s amendment during deliberations caused the mistrial; exceptional circumstances should bar retrial under double jeopardy	State: Retrial is permitted because the mistrial was granted at defendant’s request and the State did not intentionally provoke the mistrial	Court: Retrial is not barred. Under Oregon v. Kennedy and Nebraska precedent, double jeopardy bars retrial only if the prosecutor intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial; no such intent shown.

Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (discusses retrial standards when mistrial is declared)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only where prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (incorporation of double jeopardy protection to the states)
State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (Neb. 2015) (refuses to expand Oregon v. Kennedy exception beyond intent to provoke)
State v. Combs, 297 Neb. 422 (Neb. 2017) (order overruling plea in bar is final and appealable)
State v. Lavalleur, 903 N.W.2d 464 (Neb. 2017) (standards for reviewing pleas in bar)