Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Quince Judge., Parker A.C.J., Lazzara
QUINCE, Judge.
Richard Johnson challenges his conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in circuit court case no. 94-10193, and his sentence in circuit court cаse no. 95-1681 for possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. We affirm the sentence in case no. 95-1681 without further discussion; we revеrse Johnson‘s conviction in case no. 94-10193 because his retrial in that case violatеd the Fifth Amendment‘s prohibition against double jeopardy.
While executing a search warrant of Johnson‘s residence, law enforcement officers recovered a .22 caliber rifle. Ms. Juanita Homquist, who lived with Johnson, was present at the time of the search. Ms. Homquist told thе officers the gun belonged to her. Johnson was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of
Prior to trial, the state filed a motion in liminе to exclude Ms. Homquist‘s statement claiming ownership of the rifle. The trial court granted the mоtion and instructed Johnson to avoid discussing Ms. Homquist‘s statement during his testimony. Nevertheless, Johnson refеrred to Ms. Homquist‘s statement twice during direct examination. The state moved for mistrial which the court granted after it determined that Johnson had intentionally violated its order prohibiting hearsay testimony concerning Ms. Homquist‘s statement.
Defense counsel suggested that the court strikе Johnson‘s testimony and give a curative instruction; however, after considering the matter outside of the jury‘s presence, the court concluded Johnson‘s testimony had materially prejudiced the state‘s case. Johnson was retried and found guilty of the offense.
Jeoрardy attaches in a criminal prosecution when the jury is impaneled and sworn. Becаuse the right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense is so imрortant and can be frustrated when a trial ends before a verdict is reached, the stаte bears the burden of justifying a mistrial granted over the defendant‘s objection. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978); Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949). Therefore, unless circumstances give rise to material prejudice frustrating “the state‘s one full and fаir opportunity to present its case,” considerable weight must be given to the defendant‘s right to be tried by that particular tribunal. Thomason v. State, 620 So.2d 1234, 1237 (Fla.1993), citing United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824). This court has consistently held that mistrial may be predicаted upon:
1) Some misfortune which, although the fault of neither party, renders continuation of the trial impossible or unreasonably prejudicial to the substantial interest of either thе judicial process itself, the defendant, the state or both, or
2) Some unfair or wrongful taсtic, action or conduct on the part of the defendant, by which a substantial interest in the state is unfairly frustrated or embarrassed.
Spaziano v. State, 429 So.2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State ex rel. Mitchell v. Walker, 294 So.2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)Luther v. State, 661 So.2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995);
In the instant case the defendant, Johnson, denied owning the firearm but admitted being told of its presence and location in the house. Johnson lеgitimately testified to similar facts concerning ownership of the gun without disobeying the trial court‘s order. Therefore, Johnson‘s testimony did not materially prejudice the state‘s case because it was essentially cumulative to legitimate testimony elicited to establish оwnership.
Moreover, the record indicates that the state‘s case was based on a theory of
Based on the cumulative nature of appellant‘s hearsay testimony and a lack of material prejudice to the state‘s case on constructive pоssession, we find that appellant‘s testimony did not give rise to manifest necessity by making it impossible to continue the trial.
We, therefore, vacate the judgment and sentence in case no. 94-10193.
PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.