State v. Combs
297 Neb. 422
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Patrick J. Combs was tried on four charges related to financial dealings; after a multi-day jury trial the jury reported it was deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial at Combs’ request.
- After the mistrial, Combs learned via juror affidavit that the presiding juror said the jury had unanimously voted to acquit on three counts and was 11–1 not guilty on the fourth.
- Other juror emails, unsworn, suggested earlier not-guilty votes were preliminary and some jurors felt pressure; no verdict form was completed or announced in open court.
- Combs moved for judgment of acquittal (untimely after mistrial) and filed a plea in bar asserting double jeopardy barred retrial on the three counts the jury reportedly voted to acquit.
- The district court overruled the plea in bar; Combs appealed only that order (the overruling of the plea in bar is a final, appealable order).
Issues
| Issue | Combs’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury deliberation votes that were not announced or accepted in open court constitute acquittals barring retrial under Double Jeopardy | The jury had unanimously voted to acquit on counts 2–4 during deliberations, so retrial on those counts is barred | A private vote in jury deliberations is not a verdict; no acquittal occurred because no verdict was returned in open court | Vote in deliberation is not an acquittal; retrial not barred |
| Whether retrial is barred because mistrial was granted after Combs’ motion | Combs contends the mistrial should not permit retrial because the jury had effectively acquitted him on three counts | Where the defendant requests a mistrial, Double Jeopardy generally does not bar retrial unless the prosecution provoked the mistrial | Mistrial at defendant’s request permits retrial absent prosecutorial provocation |
| Whether the district court erred by overruling Combs’ post-mistrial motion for judgment of acquittal | Combs: evidence showed acquittals on three counts; judgment should have been entered | State: motion was untimely (filed after mistrial) and insufficient because no verdict existed | Motion for judgment of acquittal was untimely and properly overruled |
| Appellate jurisdiction over other trial errors (motions to dismiss, evidentiary rulings, inquiry into deadlock) | Combs asserts multiple trial errors and plain error by judge/ jurors | State: those claims are not reviewable because no final judgment; only order appealable is overruling of plea in bar | Court lacks jurisdiction to review other trial errors; only plea-in-bar ruling is appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (sets "manifest necessity" standard for retrial after mistrial declared over defendant's objection)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (holds that when defendant requests mistrial, Double Jeopardy does not bar retrial except if prosecution intended to provoke mistrial)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (incorporation of Double Jeopardy Clause to the states)
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (2009) (recognizes plea in bar as a vehicle to raise nonfrivolous double jeopardy claims; overruling is appealable)
- State v. Todd, 296 Neb. 424 (2017) (questions of law reviewable de novo)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (2017) (§ 25-1902's final-order categories are exclusive)