State v. Todd, 296 Neb. 424

On Sept. 3, 2014, Dawnelle Todd was stopped and arrested for DUI after a breath test showed .132 BAC.
Todd sought to present a “choice of evils” (necessity) defense, but the county court granted the State’s motion in limine precluding evidence and instruction on that defense.
At trial Todd testified about waking up in her car disoriented, missing clothing and a phone, and driving to a lighted, public area; the court sustained numerous objections and struck portions of her testimony that alluded to driving to "escape."
After repeated incursions on the in limine ruling and two additional volunteered statements by Todd ("escape route," "get away"), the State moved for a mistrial; the county court granted the mistrial.
Todd filed a plea in bar arguing retrial was barred by double jeopardy; the county court denied the plea, finding the record supported manifest necessity for the mistrial; the district court affirmed. Todd appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Todd)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court applied correct standard reviewing denial of plea in bar	District court used abuse-of-discretion; plea in bar is a question of law requiring de novo review	District court properly reviewed mistrial determination for abuse of discretion and plea in bar de novo	Court: Two-level review appropriate — mistrial (manifest necessity) reviewed for abuse of discretion; ultimate plea in bar reviewed de novo; no error
Whether manifest necessity supported county court’s mistrial over Todd’s objection	Mistrial lacked manifest necessity; record did not clearly justify terminating jeopardy	Repeated violations of in limine order and cumulative prejudice to jury impartiality justified mistrial	Court: Record shows sufficient justification and deliberation by trial judge; manifest necessity found
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after the mistrial	Retrial barred because jeopardy terminated when mistrial declared without manifest necessity	Double jeopardy does not bar retrial where mistrial was justified by manifest necessity	Court: Double jeopardy does not bar retrial because manifest necessity existed
Whether State’s motion in limine ruling was erroneous (preserved issue)	(Todd does not assign error on this ruling in this appeal)	N/A	County court’s in limine ruling upheld by district court; not challenged here

State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (discusses manifest necessity and standard of review for mistrial rulings)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (describes "manifest necessity" spectrum and protections of double jeopardy)
State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (review standards when prosecutorial conduct alleged to have goaded mistrial)
State v. Jackson, 274 Neb. 724 (record can supply sufficient justification for mistrial even absent explicit "manifest necessity" finding)
State v. Pester, 294 Neb. 995 (appellate standards for county-court criminal appeals)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (plea in bar is a question of law)
State v. Cisneros, 248 Neb. 372 (double jeopardy and defendant-initiated mistrial principles)