State v. Wittsell
Decision Date | 18 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 87,107,87,107 |
Citation | 66 P.3d 831,275 Kan. 442 |
Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. CLYDE A. WITTSELL, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Boyd K. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Nola Foulston, district attorney, and Carla Stovall, attorney general, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Randall J. Price, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
During the trial of Clyde Wittsell on one count of aggravated incest, a State's witness violated an order in limine by stating that there had been a polygraph examination. The district court made an immediate sua sponte declaration of mistrial. Imputing the introduction of improper evidence to the prosecution, the district court denied retrial and dismissed the complaint on double jeopardy grounds. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Wittsell, 30 Kan. App. 2d 1083, 53 P.3d 1248 (2002).
The sole issue is whether double jeopardy bars a retrial where the State's witness' violation of an order in limine precipitated a mistrial.
A polygraph examination of Wittsell was administered by Joe Rankin. In response to Wittsell's motion in limine, the prosecuting attorney agreed "to keep the issue of polygraph completely out of the trial."
Administration of the polygraph examination and what happened at trial are described as follows in the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
Following the mistrial, the State filed a motion for a new jury trial setting. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion "to determine whether to proceed with retrial or whether a retrial was barred by double jeopardy." 30 Kan. App. 2d at 1085.
The State called to the stand Detective Shackelford who testified, "" 30 Kan. App. 2d at 1085.
The trial court remarked:
"" 30 Kan. App. 2d at 1085.
The trial court noted that Detective Shackelford, as the lead case investigator, had a strong interest in the outcome of the trial. The trial court found that Shackelford was uncomfortable during the cross-examination.
As stated in the Court of Appeals' opinion, the trial court then concluded:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing with the trial court's finding under the facts of this case, that Shackelford was an agent of the State and that her misconduct precludes retrial. 30 Kan. App. 2d at 1089. This court granted the State's petition for review on the question whether the witness' introduction of improper evidence should have been attributed to the prosecution for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." The Double Jeopardy Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707, 89 S. Ct. 2056 (1969).
In In re C.M.J., 259 Kan. 854, 857, 915 P.2d 62 (1996), this court discussed double jeopardy, stating:
Because the Double Jeopardy Clause has been interpreted as a prohibition of being twice put in jeopardy, United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 669, 41 L. Ed. 300, 16 S. Ct. 1192 (1896), rather than of being twice punished for the same offense, a qualified mistrial exception to the prohibition has been developed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brock v. State
...S.E.2d 579, 580 (1996); People ex rel. Mosley v. Carey, 74 Ill.2d 527, 25 Ill.Dec. 669, 387 N.E.2d 325, 328–29 (1979); State v. Wittsell, 275 Kan. 442, 66 P.3d 831, 834–35 (2003); State v. Beaudoin, 600 A.2d 1097, 1098–99 (Me.1991); Pellegrine v. Commonwealth, 446 Mass. 1004, 844 N.E.2d 608......
-
Commonwealth v. Johnson
...chargeable to the prosecuting attorney, especially when they are unexpected and made on cross-examination. Accord State v. Wittsell , 275 Kan. 442, 66 P.3d 831, 836 (2003) ; State v. Lee , 344 S.W.3d 865, 871 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).With that said, in the present dispute the officers’ material ......
-
State v. Santos-Vega
...(considering prosecutorial misconduct when prosecutor conceded he failed to instruct witness about order in limine); State v. Wittsell, 275 Kan. 442, 454, 66 P.3d 831 (2003) (when court issues order in limine, prosecutor has duty to inform State's witnesses of order and any subjects imprope......
-
State v. Dumars
...Jeopardy Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Wittsell, 275 Kan. 442, 445, 66 P.3d 831 (2003). Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights contains an analogous protection. The defendant invites this court t......