State v. Todd
296 Neb. 424
Neb.2017Background
- Todd was charged in Dodge County Court with DUI after a traffic stop showing a .132 BAC.
- Todd sought to present a "choice of evils" (justification) defense based on waking up disoriented in her car, fearing she had been assaulted, and driving away to reach safety; the court granted the State’s motion in limine excluding that theory and related testimony.
- During trial, defense counsel repeatedly questioned Todd about her fears and reasons for driving; the court sustained objections and struck several answers as violating its in limine order.
- After additional testimony in which Todd used phrases like "escape route" and "get away," the State moved for a mistrial; the county court granted the mistrial, stating the accumulated effect of the violations could affect juror impartiality.
- Todd filed a plea in bar arguing retrial would violate double jeopardy because the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity; the county court denied the plea, and the district court (on appeal from county court) affirmed. Todd appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct standard of review to the denial of the plea in bar | Todd: district court used abuse-of-discretion standard improperly; plea in bar is a question of law requiring de novo review | State: trial-court mistrial finding (manifest necessity) is reviewed for abuse of discretion; ultimate plea in bar is legal and reviewed de novo | Court: Two-tier review appropriate — manifest-necessity finding reviewed for abuse of discretion; ultimate plea in bar reviewed de novo. |
| Whether the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity so as to avoid double jeopardy bar to retrial | Todd: mistrial not supported; record unclear and should resolve uncertainty in defendant’s favor | State: accumulated violations of in limine order, and the trial court’s position to assess juror prejudice, justified mistrial | Court: record shows trial judge acted deliberately; accumulated violations and prejudicial testimony justified mistrial (manifest necessity). |
| Whether the State’s conduct required "strictest scrutiny" (i.e., prosecutorial harassment) | Todd: State used superior resources or moved for mistrial to gain tactical advantage | State: no evidence of prosecutorial goading or harassment; mistrial was judge-driven after violations | Court: strictest scrutiny not applicable; no evidence State provoked mistrial. |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after the mistrial | Todd: jeopardy terminated when mistrial declared without manifest necessity | State: manifest necessity shown, so double jeopardy does not bar retrial | Court: double jeopardy does not bar retrial because manifest necessity existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (articulates "manifest necessity" standard for mistrials and the spectrum of scrutiny)
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (Neb. 2009) (trial judge’s mistrial decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; applies Arizona)
- State v. Jackson, 274 Neb. 724 (Neb. 2007) (record justification can suffice when explicit "manifest necessity" language is absent)
- State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (Neb. 2015) (denial of plea in bar is legal question, but subsidiary factual findings—e.g., prosecutorial intent—are reviewed under a deferential standard)