State v. Kirk
Decision Date | 11 August 1978 |
Docket Number | No. JJ-167,JJ-167 |
Citation | 362 So.2d 352 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Katrina Dorothy KIRK, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael H. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Seventh Circuit, and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
The state seeks review of the order dismissing an information which was entered on the basis that a retrial of the defendant (appellee) would violate double jeopardy. We reverse.
Defendant was brought to trial on February 14, 1978, for aggravated assaults upon Cynthia Thomas, David Mack, and Anthony Rivers and for the use of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony. During presentation of its case, the state elicited numerous responses concerning collateral offenses which were possibly violative of the rule enunciated in Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). The court sustained several of the defendant's objections to these inquiries. During cross-examination of a defense witness, the state again attempted to elicit testimony concerning collateral offenses. In questioning this witness, the state also utilized perhaps inappropriate language. After the court sustained the defendant's objection to this testimony, the defendant moved for a mistrial since the jury had already been exposed to irrelevant prejudicial testimony. The court granted the motion on that basis and for the possible misconduct on the part of the prosecutor.
The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the information, claiming that a second prosecution would violate her constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy guaranteed by Amendments V and XIV, United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss finding that the defendant was deprived her right to a fair trial through prosecutorial misconduct.
Florida courts have indicated that the defense of double jeopardy is not available to a defendant where a mistrial has been granted with his consent, approval or upon his motion. E. g. State ex rel. Larkins v. Lewis, 54 So.2d 199 (Fla.1951); McLendon v. State, 74 So.2d 656 (Fla.1954); Reyes v. Kelly, 204 So.2d 534 (Fla. 2 DCA 1967). However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that where a defendant's mistrial motion has been necessitated by judicial or prosecutorial Overreaching, rather than judicial or prosecutorial error, the double jeopardy protections may bar reprosecution. United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) (plurality opinion); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). Accord e. g., United States v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Wilson, 534 F.2d 76 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Kessler, 530 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Beasley, 479 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 924, 94 S.Ct. 252, 38 L.Ed.2d 158, reh. denied, 414 U.S. 1052, 94 S.Ct. 557, 38 L.Ed.2d 340 (1973); United States v. Broderick, 425 F.Supp. 93 (S.D.Fla.1977). As noted in United States v. Dinitz, supra, 424 U.S. at 611, 96 S.Ct. at 1081:
The law is clear that if a mistrial is ordered on a defendant's motion upon facts revealing overreaching by the judge or prosecutor, reprosecution is barred by the double jeopardy clause. Our inquiry herein must be, therefore, to determine whether the prosecutor's conduct was such as to constitute "prosecutorial overreaching." "Prosecutorial overreaching" has been defined as " 'gross negligence or intentional misconduct,' (which causes) aggravated circumstances to develop which 'seriously prejudice a defendant causing him to reasonably conclude that a continuation of the tainted proceedings would result in a conviction' (cites omitted)." United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The City of Massillon v. Mark A. Kohler, 81-LW-2380
...Parker, 116 Ariz 3, 567 P2d 319; People v Baca, 193 Colo 9, 562 P2d 411; Braxton v United States (Dist Col App) 395 A2d 759; State v Kirk (Fla App Dl) 362 So 2d 352; State v Pulawa, 58 Hawaii 377, 569 P2d 900, cert den 436 925, 56 L Ed 2d 768, 98 S Ct 2818; People v Handley, 51 Ill 2d 229, ......
-
People v. Dawson
...reh. den. 570 F.2d 949 (C.A.5,1978); United [154 MICHAPP 271] States v. Clayborne, 584 F.2d 346 (C.A.10,1978); State v. Kirk, 362 So.2d 352 (Fla.App.,1978); People v. Collins, 48 Ill.App.3d 643, 6 Ill.Dec. 296, 362 N.E.2d 1118 (1977); and Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90 (19......
-
Bell v. State
...v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1975); United States v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1978); State v. Kirk, 362 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Mere error by the judge or prosecutor resulting in the defendant's request for mistrial is not sufficient to bar reprosecu......
-
State v. Iglesias
...cannot agree. No Florida case has ever accepted this expanded exception, although the First District Court of Appeal in State v. Kirk, 362 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), adverted to it without expressing adopting same. We decline to incorporate such an expanded exception into the law of thi......