State v. Mays
346 P.3d 535
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Police searched defendant’s home (2010) and found marijuana, packaging, scales, cash, and firearms; defendant was indicted for possession and delivery of marijuana.
- Prosecutor Allison Williams and investigators met with defense witness Oren Maney and his mother before trial; Maney initially told police the seized marijuana was his, then recanted to defense counsel.
- During the first trial, the prosecutor made multiple prejudicial missteps (questioning contrary to pretrial rulings, showing firearms later withdrawn, and a closing remark about defendant’s right to counsel) and approached Maney in a manner the court found could discourage his testimony; the trial court granted a mistrial.
- After the mistrial the state compelled Maney to testify before a grand jury, gave him immunity, and he then testified that the marijuana was not his; at retrial Maney testified but had limited recollection; defendant was convicted on both counts.
- Defendant moved to dismiss post-mistrial on double jeopardy and compulsory-process grounds; the trial court denied the motion, finding prosecutorial conduct amounted to mistakes but lacked intent or willful indifference to cause a mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy under Oregon Constitution and Fifth Amendment | State: retrial permitted because prosecutor did not intend or was not indifferent to causing the mistrial | Defendant: prosecutorial conduct caused severe, incurable prejudice and thus retrial barred; alternatively, state acted with intent/willful misconduct | Court: retrial not barred — record supports trial court finding Williams made mistakes but lacked intent or indifference required under state law; federal standard (intent to "goad" defendant) not met |
| Compulsory process / right to present witness (Article I §11 and Sixth Amendment) | State: denial of dismissal; prosecutor’s contacts aimed to elicit truthful testimony and mistakes do not prove intentional interference | Defendant: prosecution’s repeated contacts irreversibly deprived him of Maney’s testimony and harmed defense; alternatively, conduct was intentional | Court: no reversible error — defendant framed claim as intentional interference so outcome depends on prosecutor’s scienter; trial court credibility findings (demeanor) support lack of intent; compulsory-process claim otherwise unaddressed because defendant did not press a non-scienter-based theory at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial only when intended to "goad" defendant into moving for mistrial)
- State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260 (Oregon Supreme Court on state double jeopardy standard requiring intent or indifference)
- State v. Kimsey, 182 Or. App. 193 (contrast of Oregon and federal double jeopardy analyses and application)
- State v. Pratt, 316 Or. 561 (negligent or grossly negligent prosecutorial error insufficient for double jeopardy bar)
- State v. Huffman, 65 Or. App. 594 (compulsory process/due process analysis when prosecution’s contact with subpoenaed defense witness affects testimony)