State v. Todd
296 Neb. 424
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Todd appeals a Dodge County judgment denying a plea in bar to retrial after a mistrial; the county court declared a mistrial based on manifest necessity due to defense counsel’s prohibited questioning and statements after an in limine ruling; the district court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion and that double jeopardy did not bar retrial; the Double Jeopardy Clause allows retrial when the mistrial is declared for manifest necessity over defendant’s objection; the record shows the mistrial was declared after multiple violations of the in limine order and concerns about juror impartiality; the issue is whether the district court properly applied the required abuse-of-discretion standard to determine manifest necessity and the resulting double jeopardy implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for mistrial manifest necessity | Todd argues abuse of discretion governs mistrial ruling. | Todd contends de novo review applies to manifest-necessity findings. | District court applied abuse of discretion for mistrial; ultimate bar question reviewed de novo. |
| Double jeopardy after mistrial over objection | Todd claims retrial barred because jeopardy terminated at mistrial. | State argues manifest necessity allows retrial over Todd's objection. | Retrial not barred; manifest necessity supported by record. |
| Whether record supports manifest necessity | Record unclear; defendant’s conduct violated order in limine. | Record shows accumulated violations affecting juror impartiality. | Record demonstrates manifest necessity; mistrial upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (Nebraska 2009) (mistrial over objection; double jeopardy not bar to retrial when manifest necessity shown)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (high degree of necessity for mistrial; respect for trial judge's discretion)
- State v. Jackson, 742 N.W.2d 751 (Nebraska 2007) (clarifies when manifest-necessity finding need not be explicit)
- State v. Cisneros, 535 N.W.2d 703 (Nebraska 1995) (defendant's own motion vs. prosecutorial misconduct context for mistrial)
- State v. Muhannad, 858 N.W.2d 598 (Nebraska 2015) (clearly erroneous standard for prosecutorial intent; two-level review framework)
- State v. Pester, 885 N.W.2d 713 (Nebraska 2016) (intermediate review framework for trial-record errors)