State v. D'Auria, s. A95A2655
Decision Date | 28 August 1996 |
Docket Number | Nos. A95A2655,A95A2656,s. A95A2655 |
Citation | 222 Ga.App. 615,475 S.E.2d 678 |
Parties | The STATE v. D'AURIA. D'AURIA v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Debra M. Sullivan, Walter C. Howard, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant.
Glass, McCullough, Sherrill & Harrold, Robert E. Wilson, Bryan A. Downs, Deborah L. Britt, Atlanta, for appellee.
The State filed an accusation against Dr. Ralph D'Auria charging him with sexual battery arising out of an incident he had with one of his patients. He was tried by a jury in the State Court of DeKalb County and found guilty as charged. The trial court ordered a new trial, however, on the basis that the State failed to notify the court and the defendant of criminal charges pending against one of its similar transaction witnesses, causing the court to unnecessarily limit D'Auria's ability to effectively cross-examine the witness. The State did not appeal the trial court's grant of D'Auria's motion for a new trial. Prior to the new trial, the trial court granted D'Auria's plea in bar--double jeopardy based upon prosecutorial misconduct motion, but denied D'Auria's plea in bar--statute of limitation motion and his demurrer based on the unconstitutionality of the statute motion.
In Case No. A95A2655, the State appeals the trial court's order granting D'Auria's plea in bar--double jeopardy based upon prosecutorial misconduct motion in which the trial court found that the State's behavior constituted prosecutorial misconduct warranting the double jeopardy bar. In Case No. A95A2656, D'Auria cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his plea in bar--statute of limitation motion and his demurrer based on the unconstitutionality of the statute motion.
The State contends that the trial court applied the wrong standard in determining that the double jeopardy bar applied. Specifically, the State contends that pretermitting the issue of whether its behavior constituted prosecutorial misconduct, the double jeopardy bar does not apply because its behavior was not aimed at subverting the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 311, 369 S.E.2d 232 (1988). Id. at 312, 369 S.E.2d 232. Although intent is a question of fact for the trial court to resolve, in order for the double jeopardy bar to apply, the facts must warrant the conclusion that the State intended to secure an opportunity to retry the case. See State v. Whitehead, 184 Ga.App. 162, 163, 361 S.E.2d 41 (1987). The appellate standard of review of a grant of a double jeopardy plea in bar is whether, after reviewing the trial court's oral and written rulings as a whole, the trial court's findings support its conclusion that the double jeopardy bar applied. See Beck v. State, 261 Ga. 826, 827, 412 S.E.2d 530 (1992).
The trial court granted D'Auria's plea in bar solely on the basis that the State engaged in intentional prosecutorial misconduct without addressing whether or not the State had intended to cause a retrial and to subvert the defendant's protections under the Double Jeopardy Clause....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Washington v. State
...61 Ga.App. 773, 773, 7 S.E.2d 611 (1940) ; Brown v. State, 35 Ga.App. 660, 660, 134 S.E. 193 (1926).37 See State v. D'Auria, 222 Ga.App. 615, 616, 475 S.E.2d 678 (1996) (remanding for further proceedings when State argued that trial court erred in granting defendant's plea in bar for double......
-
D'AURIA v. State
...through four years of post-conviction pleadings—a granted motion for new trial, two Court of Appeals' decisions (State v. D'Auria, 222 Ga.App. 615, 475 S.E.2d 678 (1996); State v. D'Auria, 229 Ga.App. 34, 492 S.E.2d 918 (1997)), a failed interlocutory application, and the denial of three pe......
-
Wadley v. State
...that the State intended to secure an opportunity to retry the case.(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. D'Auria, 222 Ga.App. 615, 616, 475 S.E.2d 678 (1996). "[I]n the context of a reversal or grant of a motion for new trial, this means the prosecutor intended to prevent an acquitt......
-
State v. D'Auria
...whether the prosecutor had intended to subvert the protections afforded by the double jeopardy clause. See State v. D'Auria, 222 Ga.App. 615, 616-617, 475 S.E.2d 678 (1996). On remand, the trial court again granted defendant's plea in bar, but this time explicitly determined that the prosec......