State v. Combs
297 Neb. 422
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Patrick J. Combs was tried on four felony counts arising from alleged financial misconduct involving the Moshers; after a multi-day jury trial the jury deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial at Combs’ renewed request.
- During deliberations the presiding juror later averred the jury had unanimously voted to acquit on three counts and was 11–1 to acquit on the fourth, but the jury did not complete or announce a verdict.
- Combs moved for judgment of acquittal after the mistrial and submitted the presiding juror’s affidavit; the court overruled the motion.
- Combs then filed a plea in bar arguing retrial on the three counts would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the jury had effectively acquitted him; the district court overruled the plea.
- Combs appealed only the plea-in-bar ruling; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether double jeopardy barred retrial and whether it had jurisdiction to review other trial errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Combs) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the overruling of the plea in bar is appealable | Overruling plea in bar is a final, appealable order | The only final order is plea in bar; other trial rulings are not final | Court: Order overruling plea in bar is a final, appealable order; appellate jurisdiction limited to that ruling |
| Whether jury deliberation votes amounted to acquittals and bar retrial under Double Jeopardy | Jurors had unanimously voted to acquit on counts 2–4, so retrial is barred | Tentative/counts votes in deliberation are not verdicts; no verdict was returned | Court: No verdict was rendered in open court; Double Jeopardy does not bar retrial |
| Whether mistrial at defendant’s request bars retrial under Double Jeopardy | Even if votes existed, mistrial requested by Combs means retrial is barred because jury intended to acquit | When defendant requests mistrial, Double Jeopardy generally does not bar retrial unless prosecution provoked mistrial | Court: Because Combs requested the mistrial and prosecution did not provoke it, retrial is not barred (narrow Kennedy exception not applicable) |
| Whether post-mistrial motion for judgment of acquittal / other trial errors are reviewable now | Court should have entered acquittal or dismissed for insufficient evidence; judge should have inquired whether verdicts existed | Motions were untimely/waived after mistrial; no final judgment to appeal other trial errors | Court: Motions for acquittal filed after mistrial were untimely and waived; other trial-error claims not reviewable on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (incorporation of Double Jeopardy Clause to the States)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (retrial after mistrial requires demonstration of manifest necessity when mistrial declared over defendant's objection)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (when defendant requests mistrial, retrial barred only where prosecution intended to provoke mistrial)
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (2009) (plea in bar may raise nonfrivolous double jeopardy claims and is a final, appealable order)
- State v. Anderson, 193 Neb. 467 (1975) (jury action in deliberations does not become a verdict until rendered in open court)