State v. Lebroke
| Decision Date | 19 April 1991 |
| Citation | 589 A.2d 941 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Robert LEBROKE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
William Maselli (orally), Andover, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.
Robert Lebroke appeals from an order entered by the Superior Court (Oxford County, Bradford, J.) denying a motion for judgment of acquittal based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. The motion for judgment of acquittal was denied after the court discharged the jury because it was unable to reach a verdict on the charge against Lebroke--one count of unlawful trafficking in cocaine. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103 (1983 & Supp.1990). There has not been a second trial and thus no final judgment of conviction has been entered. Because the court's order denying Lebroke's motion for judgment of acquittal is interlocutory and not immediately appealable, we dismiss the appeal.
Lebroke and two codefendants, Michelle Lebroke and Bruce Thomas, were indicted on charges of unlawful trafficking in cocaine. 1 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103. The charges stem from a Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement (BIDE) undercover investigation. At the close of all evidence at his trial, Lebroke moved for a judgment of acquittal based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence presented against him. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion.
The jury began deliberations in the morning, were released for the day in the afternoon, and returned the following morning for further deliberations. During its deliberations, the jury indicated several times that it was unable to reach a verdict. After polling the jury, the court concluded that no verdict could be reached and, over Lebroke's objection, found manifest necessity to declare a mistrial and dismissed the jury.
Lebroke contends that the court's order denying his motion for judgment of acquittal is immediately appealable because a second trial is barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the Maine and United States constitutions. We disagree. Lebroke did not move for dismissal on the ground that a second trial would violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. His challenge to the court's finding of a manifest necessity for the mistrial is made for the first time on appeal.
As a general rule, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Bard v. Bath Iron Works, 568 A.2d 1108, 1110 (Me.1990). The final judgment rule prevents piecemeal appeals and
helps curtail interruption, delay, duplication and harassment; it minimizes interference with the trial process; it serves the goal of judicial economy and it saves the appellate court from deciding issues which may ultimately be mooted, thus not only leaving a crisper, more comprehensible record for review in the end but also in many cases avoiding an appeal altogether.
Id. (quoting State v. Maine State Employees Ass'n, 482 A.2d 461, 464 (Me.1984)). Interlocutory orders lack finality and are generally not appealable unless they fall within a recognized exception to the final judgment rule. Id. We have previously held that a pretrial order denying a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable under the exception to the final judgment rule that permits appeals "where substantial rights of a party will be irreparably lost if review is delayed until final judgment." State v. Hanson, 483 A.2d 723, 724 (Me.1984). We now are faced with deciding whether a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence produced at a first trial is immediately appealable when a mistrial has been declared and no final judgment has been reached in a second trial. We conclude that it is not.
Although its ruling dealing with federal appellate procedure is not binding upon this court, we note that the United States Supreme Court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Savard
...Those motions were denied and appeals followed. As a general rule, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. State v. Lebroke, 589 A.2d 941, 942 (Me.1991). A pretrial order, however, denying a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy is immediately appealable under the exception to ......
-
State v. Nielsen
...dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable under [an] exception to the final judgment rule ...." State v. Lebroke, 589 A.2d 941, 942-43 (Me.1991). 2. "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ...." U.S. CONST.......
-
State v. Millett, 7507
...on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable under the [death knell] exception to the final judgment rule...." State v. Lebroke, 589 A.2d 941, 942-43 (Me.1991) (citing State v. Hanson, 483 A.2d 723, 724 (Me.1984)).4 The federal prohibition against double jeopardy applies to the stat......
-
State v. Curtis
...State v. Savard, 659 A.2d 1265, 1266 (Me.1995); (quoting State v. Hanson, 483 A.2d 723, 724 (Me. 1984)); see also State v. Lebroke, 589 A.2d 941, 942 (Me.1991). [¶ 6] No such substantial rights would be lost by awaiting final judgment, after sentencing, in this case. The principal issues in......