State v. Thompson
2014 Ohio 5583
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Craig A. Thompson was indicted for complicity to commit burglary and tried in April 2014; the jury became deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial.
- The State scheduled a retrial; Thompson moved to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy and due-process grounds.
- Thompson argued jeopardy had attached because the jury was deadlocked after the State presented its case and that a retrial would cause the specific harms double jeopardy protects against.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding no authority showing a hung jury by itself attaches double jeopardy and noting no allegation of prosecutorial misconduct or bad faith.
- Thompson appealed the denial; the appellate court accelerated the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar retrial after a mistrial from a deadlocked jury? | Retrial is permitted; mistrial for deadlock does not terminate jeopardy. | Jeopardy attached when jury deadlocked after presentation of State’s case; retrial would harm defendant and cannot be cured later. | Retrial is not barred; a mistrial for a hung jury does not terminate original jeopardy. |
| Does Anderson permit immediate appeal of denial of motions other than double-jeopardy motions? | Anderson only permits appeal of denied double-jeopardy motions before retrial; it is procedural. | Seeks to rely on Anderson to justify immediate review and broader due-process relief. | Anderson limited to double-jeopardy procedural rule; court will not extend it to due-process claims. |
| Was Harpster controlling to bar retrial here? | Harpster involved an unnecessary mistrial due to prejudice; if mistrial unnecessary, retrial may be barred. | Argues similarity to Harpster to show mistrial was unnecessary. | Harpster inapplicable—no showing of prosecutorial misconduct, bad faith, or that mistrial was unnecessary. |
| Did retrial violate due process because no new evidence exists and a second hung jury is likely? | No abuse of prosecutorial power; no facts showing due-process violation or repeated retrials. | Retrial likely to produce same outcome; forcing another trial violates due process. | No due-process violation shown; court declines to expand Anderson to allow piecemeal appeals on due-process grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 264 (Ohio 2014) (denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds is a final, appealable order)
- Harpster v. State of Ohio, 128 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 1997) (mistrial granted for counsel-elicited prejudicial testimony was unnecessary; retrial barred)
- Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984) (mistrial after a deadlocked jury does not terminate original jeopardy)
- Ingram v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 384 (D.C. 1976) (discusses retrial and dismissal contexts; not controlling where defendant was not acquitted)