State v. Davis, 2021 Ohio 2311

Michael Davis was indicted on multiple counts (including attempted murder, felonious assault, aggravated robbery, discharge of a firearm, weapons under disability, and aggravated menacing) arising from a 2017 altercation where a firearm was involved and Watson suffered serious injuries.
First jury trial (July 2018) was underway when Davis repeatedly declared he wanted to represent himself; the trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial over the State’s objection, citing manifest necessity based on Davis’s conduct and pro se request.
Court ordered competency evaluations; Davis was later found competent and executed a waiver to proceed pro se; standby counsel assisted at retrial.
Second jury trial (January 2020) proceeded with Davis representing himself; jury acquitted him of attempted murder and one count of felonious assault (deadly weapon) but convicted on several other counts; Davis was sentenced to 24 years.
On appeal Davis raised: (1) mistrial/double jeopardy based on the court’s sua sponte mistrial, (2) improper flight jury instruction, and (3) refusal to give a self-defense instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Davis)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte declaring a mistrial (double jeopardy)	Court properly found manifest necessity because Davis unequivocally sought to proceed pro se mid-trial and his conduct risked tainting the jury; retrial permissible.	Court erred: Davis did not request a mistrial; his pro se request was untimely and retrial violates Double Jeopardy.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial was justified by manifest necessity; Davis waived objections and arguably invited the error.
Whether the flight instruction was proper	Evidence of leaving the scene supported a requested flight instruction that the jury could consider for consciousness of guilt.	No evidence of deliberate flight to evade police; instruction inappropriate.	Instruction arguably improper under Eighth District precedent, but any error was not plain or prejudicial.
Whether the court erred in refusing a self-defense instruction	Self-defense was inapplicable because Davis consistently denied committing the offenses and claimed accidental discharge/innocence.	Testimony supported a theory that Davis acted to disarm an armed woman and that force was used in defense; instruction was warranted.	Denial was not an abuse of discretion: self-defense requires an admission of intent to commit the act (then justification); Davis’s testimony asserted innocence or accidental discharge, inconsistent with self-defense.

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only where prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke mistrial)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (retrial allowed unless mistrial lacked "manifest necessity")
Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (1973) (no mechanical formula for manifest necessity; courts consider unique trial circumstances)
United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824) (early articulation that mistrials require "greatest caution" and manifest necessity)
State v. Gunnell, 973 N.E.2d 243 (Ohio 2012) (trial judge best positioned to assess whether mistrial is warranted; standard of deliberate, rational decision)
State v. Widner, 429 N.E.2d 1065 (Ohio 1981) (retrial permissible where manifest necessity or ends of public justice require it)