State v. Williams
24 Neb. Ct. App. 920
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Barbara J. Williams was charged with one count of child abuse based largely on cell-phone call logs showing timing of calls on the day an injury was discovered.
- Parties agreed to admit cell-phone records without a records custodian; the records included a NEID column and a provider key explaining NEID and timestamps.
- During trial the prosecutor learned provider data showed some timestamps were in Mountain Time and that NEID values linked to tower locations; a different provider key identifying tower locations existed but was not disclosed to defense counsel before rebuttal.
- The State announced it would use the newly obtained provider information on rebuttal; the defense moved for a mistrial, which the court granted because the late disclosure undermined the defense’s theory and expert assumptions about timestamps.
- Williams filed a plea in bar (double jeopardy) arguing the State intentionally withheld the information to ‘‘goad’’ her into moving for mistrial; she also sought sanctions and reimbursement.
- The district court found the State’s failure to disclose was misconduct but insufficiently intentional to bar retrial, denied the plea in bar and other relief; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after a defendant-requested mistrial where prosecutorial misconduct occurred | State intentionally withheld provider key and probe questions to provoke mistrial; retrial should be barred | The late disclosure was improper but not intended to provoke a mistrial; retrial permissible | Affirmed: defendant must prove prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial; record did not show such intent |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying discovery-related sanctions and other relief | Williams sought dismissal, contempt, expert/attorney fees, and wage reimbursement due to State’s late disclosure | State argued actions were mistaken, not nefarious, and sanctions were discretionary | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying additional relief |
| Standard of review for intent to provoke mistrial finding | (n/a) Williams contested trial court factual finding | State urged deference to trial court factfinding | Court applied clearly erroneous standard to intent finding and found it not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the trial court properly analyzed objective factors from Muhannad I | Williams argued factors show sequence and motive to provoke mistrial | State argued factors did not support intent to provoke mistrial and offered plausible justification | Court properly applied factors and concluded no intent to provoke mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muhannad, 286 Neb. 567 (Neb. 2013) (articulates objective factors for determining whether prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
- State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (Neb. 2015) (review standard and discussion of intent to provoke mistrial)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only when prosecutor intended to provoke defendant into moving for mistrial)
- State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (Neb. 2017) (plea in bar is question of law)
- State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501 (Neb. 2016) (trial court has broad discretion on discovery sanctions)