State v. Todd
894 N.W.2d 255
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Defendant Dawnelle C. Todd was charged with DUI after a traffic stop showing a .132 BAC; jury was impaneled and trial proceeded in Dodge County Court.
- The State obtained an in limine ruling excluding Todd’s proposed "choice of evils" (necessity) defense and corresponding jury instruction as not supported by the evidence.
- During trial, defense counsel elicited or elicited responses relating to the excluded justification theory despite repeated objections; the court struck some testimony and sustained objections.
- After multiple violations and two additional contested statements by Todd (“escape route,” “get away”), the court granted the State’s motion for a mistrial over Todd’s objection and indicated the jury would be discharged and the case retried.
- Todd filed a plea in bar arguing double jeopardy barred retrial; the county court denied the plea, the district court (as intermediate appellate court) affirmed, and Todd appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Todd) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct standard in reviewing the denial of the plea in bar | District court used abuse-of-discretion standard improperly; plea in bar is a question of law requiring de novo review | District court properly reviewed the trial judge’s mistrial decision for abuse of discretion while treating the plea in bar as a legal question | Partially reject — de novo review applies to plea in bar as a legal question, but the trial court’s mistrial decision (manifest necessity) is reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court did not err |
| Whether mistrial declared over objection terminated jeopardy and barred retrial under double jeopardy | Mistrial discharged jury without manifest necessity; retrial barred by double jeopardy | Record shows accumulated, repeated violations of in limine order that could prejudice jurors, supporting manifest necessity | Affirmed — record supports manifest necessity; double jeopardy does not bar retrial |
| Whether the in limine ruling excluding the necessity defense was erroneous | (Not contested on appeal) | In limine exclusion was warranted because evidence did not show a specific, immediate harm or reasonable belief of same | District court’s affirmance of the in limine ruling stands (no error assigned) |
| Whether the record must contain an explicit ‘‘manifest necessity’’ finding at time of mistrial | Court must have explicitly stated manifest necessity or otherwise the mistrial is invalid | A specific manifest necessity label is not required if the record provides sufficient justification; ambiguity resolved for defendant | Held that explicit wording is unnecessary when record justifies mistrial; ambiguity favors defendant but record here was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (mistrial over objection permissible if manifest necessity; trial judge afforded deference)
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (Neb. 2009) (trial court’s determination of manifest necessity reviewed for abuse of discretion; double jeopardy analysis)
- State v. Jackson, 274 Neb. 724 (Neb. 2007) (explicit finding of manifest necessity not required if record supplies justification)
- State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (Neb. 2015) (two-level review: legal question with clearly erroneous review for certain factual findings such as prosecutorial intent)
- State v. Pester, 294 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2016) (district court as intermediate appellate court reviews county court record for error or abuse of discretion)