State v. Todd, 296 Neb. 424

Todd was charged in Dodge County with DUI after a traffic stop and a .132 chemical breath test.
The State moved in limine to exclude Todd’s proposed "choice of evils" (justification) defense; the court sustained the motion and refused the jury instruction.
At trial, defense counsel elicited and Todd volunteered testimony referring to driving as an "escape route" and to wanting to "get away," despite prior rulings limiting evidence of the justification defense; several answers were struck.
After multiple incursions on the in limine ruling, the court sustained the State’s motion and declared a mistrial over Todd’s objection, stating the accumulated effect could affect juror impartiality.
Todd filed a plea in bar arguing double jeopardy barred retrial; the county court denied the plea, the district court (intermediate appellate review) affirmed, and Todd appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a retrial is barred by double jeopardy after a mistrial declared over defendant's objection	Todd: Mistrial terminated jeopardy because the court did not expressly find "manifest necessity"; retrial violates double jeopardy	State: Mistrial was justified by manifest necessity given repeated violations of in limine order that could prejudice jurors	Retrial not barred; record shows sufficient justification for mistrial (manifest necessity), so double jeopardy does not apply
Proper standard of review for denial of a plea in bar when mistrial based on manifest necessity	Todd: District court applied abuse-of-discretion standard to plea in bar (legal question), which was incorrect	State: While plea in bar is a question of law, the trial court’s mistrial declaration (manifest necessity) is reviewed for abuse of discretion	Two-level approach: manifest-necessity finding (mistrial) reviewed for abuse of discretion; ultimate plea-in-bar (double jeopardy) is reviewed de novo; district court’s review was acceptable

State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (review of mistrial for manifest necessity; mistrial denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (framework for manifest necessity and spectrum of scrutiny for mistrial rulings)
State v. Jackson, 274 Neb. 724 (record can supply sufficient justification for mistrial even if trial court did not use exact language)
State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (distinguishing standards when prosecutor provokes mistrial; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
State v. Pester, 294 Neb. 995 (district court as intermediate appellate review limited to record for error/abuse of discretion)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (plea in bar is a question of law reviewed de novo)