State v. Kevin Corleto, 2017 WL 2485086

Kevin Corleto was charged with breaking and entering a Newport dwelling (G.L. 1956 § 11-8-2) after Elizabeth Murphy testified she saw him climb over her back-deck railing and enter her home.
At trial Murphy was the only witness; defense cross-examination highlighted omissions between her in-court testimony and prior statements.
Before closing arguments, the judge asked whether the parties’ positions had changed; defense had previously indicated willingness to plead to amended trespass; the state declined.
During closing, the prosecutor commented: “There is no testimony, no evidence before us that explains why Mr. Corleto was climbing over a back deck railing,” prompting defense to object and move for a mistrial on Fifth Amendment grounds (suggesting impermissible comment on defendant’s silence).
The trial justice granted the motion to pass the case (mistrial) but later denied Corleto’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, finding the prosecutor’s remark was an unintentional error, not intentional goading to provoke a mistrial.
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s factual finding that there was no prosecutorial intent to provoke mistrial and thus retrial is not barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Corleto)	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after a defendant-requested mistrial caused by alleged prosecutorial goading	Retrial is permitted because the prosecutor’s closing remark was not intended to provoke mistrial; any error was inadvertent and curable	Prosecutor’s comment improperly suggested defendant’s failure to testify and was prosecutorial misconduct intended to goad defendant into a mistrial, barring retrial under double jeopardy	Held: No double jeopardy bar. Trial court’s factual finding that misconduct was unintentional is supported by competent evidence; retrial allowed

State v. O’Connor, 936 A.2d 216 (R.I. 2007) (deference to trial court’s factual findings on intent to provoke mistrial)
State v. Rolle, 84 A.3d 1149 (R.I. 2014) (court examines objective circumstances to infer prosecutorial intent)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (retrial barred only when prosecutor’s conduct was intended to provoke mistrial)
State v. Diaz, 521 A.2d 129 (R.I. 1987) (balancing defendant’s right to verdict and public interest; intent question for trial court)
State v. Casas, 792 A.2d 737 (R.I. 2002) (mistrial at defendant’s request normally permits retrial absent intentional provocation)
State v. McIntyre, 671 A.2d 806 (R.I. 1996) (same principle re: prosecutorial provocation)
State v. Gordon, 508 A.2d 1339 (R.I. 1986) (discusses standards for retrial after mistrial)
State v. Hull, 754 A.2d 84 (R.I. 2000) (deference to trial court’s findings on prosecutorial intent)