State v. Todd
296 Neb. 424
Neb.2017Background
- Todd was charged with DUI after a traffic stop and chemical breath test showed .132 BAC.
- Todd sought to present a "choice of evils" (justification) defense claiming she drove to escape a frightening situation after waking alone in her car without belongings.
- The county court granted the State's motion in limine and excluded evidence/instruction on the choice-of-evils defense as unsupported by the record.
- During trial, defense counsel elicited or elicited testimony about the justification theory despite the in limine ruling; the court struck some answers and sustained objections.
- After multiple violations, the court declared a mistrial (over Todd's objection); Todd moved to dismiss with prejudice asserting double jeopardy barred retrial.
- County court denied the plea in bar, finding the record supported a manifest necessity for mistrial; the district court affirmed on appeal. Todd appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Todd) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied correct standard of review | District court erred by reviewing denial of plea in bar for abuse of discretion rather than de novo | District court properly reviewed trial court's mistrial decision for abuse of discretion and plea in bar as question of law | Affirmed: mistrial ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion; plea in bar reviewed de novo |
| Whether mistrial terminated jeopardy and barred retrial under Double Jeopardy | Mistrial terminated jeopardy because county court did not expressly find "manifest necessity"; retrial therefore barred | Record shows sufficient justification/manifest necessity for mistrial declared over defendant's objection | Affirmed: record supports manifest necessity; double jeopardy does not bar retrial |
| Whether the in limine order was improperly enforced/State provoked mistrial | Defense argued the State opened the door or used resources to gain advantage | County court found repeated defense violations of in limine ruling, not prosecutorial misconduct, led to mistrial | Held: no showing State provoked mistrial; strict scrutiny inapplicable |
| Whether the record needed an explicit "manifest necessity" finding | Todd argued explicit finding required at time of mistrial | State argued record can supply sufficient justification even if trial court did not use exact phrase | Held: explicit wording not required; record can support manifest necessity; ambiguity resolved for defendant only if record unclear |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pester, 294 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2016) (appellate standards for county-court criminal appeals)
- State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (Neb. 2017) (plea in bar is question of law)
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (Neb. 2009) (trial judge's mistrial decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; manifest necessity doctrine)
- State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (Neb. 2015) (provocation by prosecutor analyzed under clearly erroneous standard for intent)
- State v. Jackson, 274 Neb. 724 (Neb. 2007) (record can supply manifest necessity; ambiguity resolved for defendant)
- State v. Cisneros, 248 Neb. 372 (Neb. 1995) (different rule when defendant seeks mistrial)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (framework for when mistrial declared over defendant's objection bars retrial; spectrum of necessity and importance of careful judicial consideration)