State v. T.S., 93-470
| Decision Date | 07 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-470,93-470 |
| Citation | 627 So.2d 1254 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2570 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. T.S., a juvenile, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Patricia Ann Ash and Joni Braunstein, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Amy D. Ronner, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Lauren Greenbaum and Virginia Maya, Certified Legal Interns, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
Because the trial court (1) expressly declined to find that the prosecuting attorney in a prior trial deliberately defied a pretrial court order to refrain from adducing evidence of the defendant's bad character when the attorney responded to a trial court question during a non-jury, juvenile delinquency trial by stating, in part, that the respondent "had been warned previously to leave the property because he was out there committing some delinquent offenses"; (2) expressly concluded that the subject response "may have been inadvertent," on the part of the prosecuting attorney, which is fully supported by the prosecuting attorney's subsequent query on the record as to why the trial court was granting the respondent's motion for mistrial based on this response; and (3) made no finding that the prosecuting attorney intentionally gave the subject response to the trial court in bad faith in order to provoke the respondent into moving for a mistrial, which the trial court granted at the prior trial [a result which we think was not required in any event], we hold that the trial court committed reversible error in subsequently granting the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for delinquency based on double jeopardy grounds.
Generally speaking, where, as here, a person accused of a crime consents at trial to a mistrial of the case, the state is not barred by double jeopardy from retrying the accused for the same offense or offenses. One narrow exception to this rule has been recognized, which exception is inapplicable to this case. Where, unlike this case, a mistrial consented to by the defendant is based on bad-faith, prosecutorial or trial court misconduct intentionally designed to provoke a mistrial, the state is barred by double jeopardy from ever retrying the accused for the same offense or offenses. On the other hand, where, as here, the prosecuting attorney engages in alleged misconduct which, at worst, is merely negligent or even grossly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. State, 97-405
...presented are similarly without merit. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); State v. T.S., 627 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Burgess v. State, 644 So.2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 Affirmed. ...
-
Jackson v. State
...2d at 643–44.Petition denied.1 Jackson also raised a second ground which we deny without extended discussion. See State v. T.S., 627 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ("[W]here, as here, the prosecuting attorney engages in alleged misconduct which, at worst, is merely negligent or even g......
- Jackson v. State
-
Kirby v. State, 97-2111
...707 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1997); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Duest v. State, 462 So.2d 446 (Fla.1985); State v. T.S., 627 So.2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). ...