Beck v. State

Decision Date29 January 1992
Docket NumberNo. S91G1476,S91G1476
Citation261 Ga. 826,412 S.E.2d 530
PartiesBECK v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

J.M. Raffauf, Decatur, Alden W. Snead, Office of the Public Defender, Douglasville, for Beck.

David J. McDade, Dist. Atty., Lois W. Gerstenberger, Asst. Dist. Atty., Douglasville, for the State.

BELL, Justice.

The issue before us is whether the trial court made sufficient findings and conclusions to support its grant of a plea of double jeopardy. The defendant, Michael Odell Beck, was brought to trial on charges of child molestation. During the trial the court granted a motion for mistrial because the prosecutor violated an order that had excluded evidence of similar transactions. Beck later made a plea of double jeopardy that was predicated on the prosecutorial conduct that led to the mistrial.

"Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion." Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2089, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982). In granting the plea in the present case, the court orally ruled that the prosecutor had "a deliberate intent to goad [defense counsel] into a mistrial, ... and that it was prosecutorial misconduct." The court later entered a written order in which the court concluded that the "prosecutorial error, ... in violation of the Court's order ... was intentional," and that "such intentional conduct on the part of the prosecution is sufficient to bar retrial." However, the written order omitted, perhaps by clerical error, the court's earlier oral ruling that the prosecutor had deliberately intended to goad defense counsel into a mistrial. Moreover, on appeal by the State to the Court of Appeals, the transcript of the double jeopardy hearing was omitted from the record that was transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of the plea of double jeopardy, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficient to raise the bar of double jeopardy. State v. Beck, 200 Ga.App. 557, 558, 409 S.E.2d 57 (1991). We granted certiorari, and thereafter ordered transmitted to this Court the transcript of the double jeopardy hearing. Our review of that heretofore missing piece of the record shows that, when the trial court's oral and written rulings are considered as a whole, the court's findings in support of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Rogan
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 1999
    ...Kennedy intent criterion has afforded a remedy for even the most egregious misconduct." Rosenthal, supra at 910 (citing Beck v. State, 261 Ga. 826, 412 S.E.2d 530 (1992), and State v. Laster, 223 Mont. 152, 724 P.2d 721 10. We note that this standard is, in effect, the logical extension of ......
  • Ex Parte Lewis
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 Enero 2007
    ...721 (1986); People v. Dawson, 431 Mich. 234, 427 N.W.2d 886 (1988); State v. Rademacher, 433 N.W.2d 754 (Iowa 1988); Beck v. State, 261 Ga. 826, 412 S.E.2d 530 (1992); State v. Long, 1993 WL 245367, 1993 Del. LEXIS 250 (1993); State v. Thomas, 275 Ga. 167, 562 S.E.2d 501 (2002). There may b......
  • State v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 15 Abril 2002
    ...489, 491 S.E.2d 377 (1997). See also Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676(II), 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); Beck v. State, 261 Ga. 826, 412 S.E.2d 530 (1992). Under Georgia law, it is well-settled that the defendant bears the burden of proof on a plea in bar, even if she is thereb......
  • Robinson v. Com.
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • 11 Enero 1994
    ...other crimes evidence was intentional conduct that barred a retrial because it provoked motion for mistrial. See Beck v. State, 261 Ga. 826, 412 S.E.2d 530 (1992); State v. Laster, 223 Mont. 152, 724 P.2d 721 (1986). Both of those cases involved persistent, improper prosecutorial conduct. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT