State v. Todd, 296 Neb. 424

Todd was charged in Dodge County Court with driving under the influence after a traffic stop and a .132 BAC chemical test.
The State moved in limine to exclude Todd’s proposed "choice of evils" (necessity) defense; the county court sustained the motion and refused the instruction.
At trial, defense counsel repeatedly asked questions and elicited testimony related to the excluded necessity theory; the court sustained objections and struck certain answers.
After multiple violations of the in limine ruling and two additional volunteered statements by Todd about driving as an "escape route," the State moved for a mistrial; the county court granted it and planned a retrial.
Todd filed a plea in bar arguing retrial was barred by double jeopardy because jeopardy had attached and the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity; the county court denied the plea and the district court (on appeal) affirmed.

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: The plea in bar presents a question of law and should be reviewed de novo	State: Although ultimate plea in bar is legal, the trial court’s mistrial decision (manifest necessity) is reviewed for abuse of discretion	Court: Two-tier review is appropriate — de novo for legal question; abuse of discretion for manifest necessity decision
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after mistrial declared over defendant's objection	Todd: Mistrial lacked manifest necessity; retrial barred by Double Jeopardy Clause	State: Record shows accumulated violations of in limine order and prejudicial testimony; manifest necessity justified mistrial and retrial	Court: County court did not abuse discretion; record shows sufficient justification for manifest necessity; retrial not barred

State v. Pester, 294 Neb. 995 (discussing appellate standard from county court)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (plea in bar is a question of law)
State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841 (trial court’s mistrial decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; double jeopardy and manifest necessity analysis)
State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (two-level review where factual findings on prosecutor’s intent are clearly erroneous standard)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. Supreme Court articulation of manifest necessity and spectrum of scrutiny for mistrials)
State v. Jackson, 274 Neb. 724 (record may supply sufficient justification for mistrial even absent explicit manifest necessity language)
State v. Cisneros, 248 Neb. 372 (distinguishing mistrials granted at defendant’s request)