State v. Mosley
2011 OK CR 20
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Mosley was charged with Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Methamphetamine) and Failure to Display Tax Stamp on CDS in Cleveland County, Oklahoma.
- A narcotics search warrant was executed; Mosley emerged from a residence, was detained, and methamphetamine was found on his person.
- During interview, Mosley admitted selling methamphetamine and claimed he bought the meth for $4,000, triggering defense motion in limine about prior convictions.
- The court granted a mistrial after Mosley’s counsel moved for it, citing improper testimony about Mosley’s prior arrests and probation.
- The State sought to retry Mosley; Mosley moved to dismiss on double jeopardy and due process grounds, arguing the mistrial was not proper.
- The district court dismissed the case, finding the State negligent for not instructing the witness and concluding double jeopardy prevented retrial; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did double jeopardy bar retrial when mistrial was granted at Mosley's request? | Mosley | Mosley | Retrial allowed; not barred by double jeopardy |
| Was the mistrial proper given the State's conduct and whether it was goading Mosley into a mistrial? | Mosley | State | Not shown; no proof of prosecutorial goading |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (consent-based mistrials affect double jeopardy; goading must be shown)
- United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1824) (manifest necessity standard for mistrials over defendant's objection)
- United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (distinguishes goading from manifest necessity; bad-faith conduct bar to retrial)
- Randolph v. State, 231 P.3d 672 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (clarifies manifest necessity framework in Oklahoma double jeopardy context)
- Napier v. State, 821 P.2d 1062 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (rejects goading theory in some contexts; remand for new trial)
- Loyd v. State, 116 P.959 (Okla. Crim. 1911) (early articulation of acquittal when jury discharged without defendant's consent)
- Oklahoma cases cited: Randoph and Napier line on double jeopardy/goaling, 821 P.2d 1062 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (application of goading concept in double jeopardy context)