State v. Truhlar
2017 Ohio 9018
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2013 Matthew Truhlar was indicted on rape, gross sexual imposition, and two kidnapping counts for alleged acts in 1993.
- At bench trial the court granted Truhlar a Crim.R. 29 acquittal on the gross sexual imposition; the remaining counts were taken under advisement after the close of evidence.
- Five days later the state sought to supplement the record with the victim’s medical records; Truhlar moved for a mistrial and renewed his preindictment-delay motion.
- The trial court granted a mistrial and dismissed the case with prejudice; the state appealed and this court reversed the dismissal (upholding the mistrial but holding reprosecution was not barred).
- On remand Truhlar moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the prosecution provoked the mistrial; the trial court denied the motion.
- Truhlar appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the earlier appellate decision was law of the case and that the state did not intentionally provoke the mistrial such that double jeopardy would bar retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after the trial court granted a mistrial prompted by the state’s post-trial request to supplement records | State: Double jeopardy does not bar retrial because the mistrial was not provoked by prosecutorial misconduct intended to force a mistrial. | Truhlar: The prosecution’s actions provoked a mistrial and thus retrial is barred under the Kennedy exception. | Affirmed: Retrial not barred; court found no intent by the prosecution to provoke a mistrial and the earlier appellate holding is law of the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (retrial barred only when prosecutorial misconduct is intended to provoke a mistrial)
- United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 (1964) (mistrial generally permits retrial)
- State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61 (1994) (Ohio law recognizing retrial after mistrial except where misconduct intended to provoke mistrial)
- State v. Glover, 35 Ohio St.3d 18 (1988) (discusses Kennedy exception under Ohio law)
- State v. Girts, 121 Ohio App.3d 539 (1997) (only prosecutorial conduct intentionally calculated to cause mistrial bars retrial)