D A 0 7

- 0 4 2 1

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 0 9 M T 9 4

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

D O N A L D C A T

E S

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Cou rt of the Tenth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f F e r g

u s

, C a u s e N o

. D C 2 0 0 5

- 0 6 4

H o n o r a b l e E

. W a y n e P h i l l i

p s

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

T o r g e r O a a s

, A t t o r

n e y a t L a w

, L e w i s t o w n

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

H o n

. S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, Sheri K. Sprigg

, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, M ontana

T homas P. Meissner, Fergus County Attorney, Lewistown, Montana

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : F e b r u a r y 1 1

, 2 0 0 9

D e c i d e d : M a r c h 3 1

, 2 0 0 9

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k March 31 20092

Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 D o n a l d C a t e s ( C a t e s ) a p p e a l s t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i n t h e T e n t h

J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. W e a f f i r m

.

F A C T U A L A N D P R O C E D U R A L B A C K G R O U N D

¶ 2 O n S e p t e m

b e r 1 6

, 2 0 0 5

, a w o m a n c o n t a c t e d t h e L e w i s t o w

n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t t o

r e p o r t t h a

t h e r 1 6

- y e a r

- o l d d a u g

h t e r

, S

. C

. , h a d b e e n r a

p e d

. S

. C

. w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y

i n t e r v i e w e d b y t h e p o l i c e

. I n i t i a l l y s h e s t a t e d t h a

t s h e d i d n o t k

n o w t h e p e r s o n w

h o r a p e d

h e r

, b u t l a

t e r s t a t e d t

h a t C a t e s f

o r c e d h e r t o h a v

e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t h e r c o n s e n t

a n d h a d p e n e t r a t e d h e r

. O n S e p t e m b e r 1 7

, 2 0 0 5

, C a

t e s w a s i n t e r r o g

a t e d b y O f

f i c e r S t a c y

D a n z e r ( O f

f i c e r D a n z e r ) a t t h e L e w i s t o w n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t a b o u t t h e s e a l l e g

a t i o n s

.

C a t e s w a s 1 7 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e

. P r i o r t o t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n

, O f f i c e r D a n z e r a d v

i s e d

C a t e s o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g h t s b u t d i d n o t p r o p e r l y a d v i s e h i m o f h i s r i g

h t t o p a r e n t a

l

n o t i f i c a t i o n u n d e r § 4 1

- 5

- 3 3 1 ( 1 ) ( b )

, M C A

, w h i c h r e a d s a s f

o l l o w s :

W h e n a y o u t h i s t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y f o r q u e s t i o n i n g u p o n a m a t t e r t h a t

c o u l d r e s u l t i n a p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e y o u t

h i s e i t h e r a d e l i n q u e

n t

y o u t h o r a y o u t

h i n n e e d o f i n t e r v

e n t i o n

, t h e f

o l l o w i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s m u s t

b e m e t :

. . . ( b ) T h e i n v

e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r

, p r o b a t i o n o f

f i c e r

, o r p e r s o n a s s i g

n e d

t o g i v e n o t i c e s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i f y t h e p a r e n t s

, g

u a r d i a n

, o r l e g

a l

c u s t o d i a n o f t h e y o u t

h t h a t t h e y o u

t h h a s b e e n t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y

, t h e

r e a s o n s f o r t a k i n g t h e y o u t h i n t o c u s t o d y

, a n d w h e r e t h e y o u t h i s b e i n g

h e l d

. I f t h e p a r e n t s

, g

u a r d i a n

, o r l e g

a l c u s t o d i a n c a n

n o t b e f o u n d t h r o u g h

d i l i g e n t e f f o r t s

, a c l o s e r e l a t i v

e o r f r i e n d c h o s e n b y t h e y o u t h m u s t b e

notified.

¶ 3 T h e i n t e r r o g

a t i o n b e t w e e n O f

f i c e r D a n z e r a n d C a t e s w a s v i d e o t a p e d

. D u r i n g t h e

i n t e r r o g a t i o n

, C a t e s s i g

n e d a w r i t t e n w a i v

e r o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g h t s a n d a g

r e e d t o s p e a k3

w i t h O f f i c e r D a n z e r

. H o w e v e r

, C a t e s a l s o t o l d O f f i c e r D a n z e r t h a t h e w i s h e d t o s p e a k

w i t h h i s p a r e n t s d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w

. I n s p i t e o f t h i s r e q u e s t

, O f f i c e r D a n z e r c o n t i n u e d

w i t h t h e i n t e r r

o g a t i o n o f C a t e s

, a n d C a t e s m a d e s e v e r a l s t a t e m e n t s w

h i c h w e r e

p o t e n t i a l l y i n c r i m i n a t i n g

.

¶ 4 O n S e p t e m

b e r 1 9

, 2 0 0 5

, C a t e s w a s c h a r g e d i n F e r g

u s C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h

o n e c o u n t o f s e x

u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t

. S u b s e q

u e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f C a t e s l e d

t h e p o l i c e t o b e l i e v

e t h a t C a t e s h a d c o m

m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e o f s e x

u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t

c o n s e n t o n m

u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s a g

a i n s t a t o t a

l o f 5 t e e

n a g e g i r l s

, i n c l u d i n g S

. C

.

A c c o r d i n g

l y

, t h e F e r g

u s C o u n t y A t t o r n e y f

i l e d a n A m e n d e d I

n f o r m a t i o n o n O c t o b e r 3 1

,

2 0 0 5

, c h a r g

i n g C a t e s a s a n a d u l t w i t h 1 0 c o u n t s o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t

,

a n d o n e c o u

n t o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

.

¶ 5 O n e o f t h e a l l e g

e d v i c t i m s w a s K

. K

. , a f

e m a l e w h o w a s 1 5 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f

t h e a l l e g e d c r i m e

. T w o o f t h e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t c h a r g e s w e r e b a s e d o n

a l l e g e d o f f e n s e s c o m m

i t t e d a g a i n s t h e r o n A

p r i l 1 7

, 2 0 0 5

, a n d M a y 1

, 2 0 0 5

. T w o o f t h e

o t h e r s e x

u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t c h a r g e s w e r e b a s e d o n a c t s p u r p o r t e d l y

c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t S

. C

. o n S e p t e m

b e r 1 6

, 2 0 0 5

. A f

t e r t h e a l l e g

e d s e x u a l c r i m e s h a d b e e n

c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t S

. C

. o n t h a t d a

t e

, s h e u n d e r w e n t a f

o r e n s i c r a p e e x a m a t t h e C e n t r a l

M o n t a n a M e d i c a l C e

n t e r

. T h e r a

p e k i t c o n

t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e f

r o m t h i s e x a m w a s

s u b s e q u e n

t l y d e l i v e r e d t o O f

f i c e r D a n z e r

. O n S e p t e m b e r 1 7

, 2 0 0 5

, t

h e p o l i c e a

l s o

recovered a used condom f r o m K

. K

. ’ s r e s i d e n c e w

h i c h h a d b e e

n a l l e g e d l y u s e d b y C a t e s

i n t h e r a p e o f S

. C

. T h e c o n d o m w a s a l s o d e l i v e r e d t o O f

f i c e r D a n z e r

.4

¶ 6 A j u r y t r i a l w a s e v e n t u a l l y s c h e d u l e d f

o r D e c e m

b e r 4

, 2 0 0 6

. C a t e s w a s

r e p r e s e n t e d b y a t t o r n e y s T o r g e r O a a s ( O a a s ) a n d R

. A l l e n B e c k ( B e c k )

. P r e v i o u s l y

, o n

J a n u a r y 1 0

, 2 0 0 6

, t

h i s C o u r t d e c i d e d S

t a t e v

. M c K e e

, 2 0 0 6 M T 5

, 3 3 0 M o n t

. 2 4 9

, 1 2 7

P

. 3 d 4 4 5

. I

n M c K e e

, w e h e l d t h a

t f a i l u r e o f l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t t o c o m

p l y w i t h

§ 4 1

- 5

- 3 3 1 ( 1 ) ( b )

, M C A

, r e q u i r e s t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f a n y s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y a y o u t h

d u r i n g c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n

. McKee , ¶ 26. Even though C a t e s ’ c o u n s e l c o u l d h a v e

m o v e d t o s u p p r e s s t h e v

i d e o t a p e d i n t e r r o g

a t i o n o f C a t e s i n l i g

h t o f M c K e e , Ca tes ’

counsel did not do so for tactical reasons

. As Cates ’ c o u n s e l l a t e r e x p l a i n e d

, t h e y

b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e v

i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n w a s a c t u a l l y e x c u l p a t o r y a n d t h a t a n e x a m i n a t i o n

o f t h e v i d e o t a p e w o u l d s h o w t

h a t O f f i c e r D a n z e r m i s r e p r e s e n t e d s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y

Cates during the interrogation in a police report she later prepared. C a t e s ’ c o u n s e l a

l s o

r e a s o n e d i t w o u l d b e b e t t e r f o r t h e i r d e f

e n s e t o p l a y t

h e v i d e o t a p e a t t r i a l

, t h a

n h a v e C a t e s

h i m s e l f t e s t i f

y

.

¶ 7 D u r i n g o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s

, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n d e s c r i b e d t o t h e j u r y h o w C a t e s

a l l e g e d l y r a p e d t h e f

i v e t e e n a g e g i r l s r e f

e r e n c e d i n t h e A m e n d e d I n f o r m a t i o n

. T h e

prosecut i o n a l s o d i s c u s s e d C a t e s ’ v i d e o t a p e d c o n f e s s i o n

, a n d r e f

e r r e d t o p o r

t i o n s o f t h e

v i d e o t a p e w

h i c h i t a r g

u e d w e r e i n c r i m

i n a t i n g

.

¶ 8 O n t h e m o r n i n g o f d a y t h r e e o f t h e t r i a l

, K

. K

. t o o k t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d a n d t e s t i f i e d

a b o u t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C a t e s

. K

. K

. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e a n d C a t e s d a t e d f r o m F e b r u a r y

2 0 0 5 t o S e

p t e m b e r 2 0 0 5

, a n d t h a

t C a t e s h a d f

o r c e d h e r t o h a v

e s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e a g

a i n s t

h e r w i l l d u r i n g c o u r s e o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p

. S i n c e t h e A m e n d e d I n f o r m a t i o n o n l y a l l e g

e d

t h a t C a t e s c o m m i t t e d a s e x

u a l o f f e n s e a g a i n s t o n K

. K

. A

p r i l 1 7

, 2 0 0 5

, a n d M a y 1

, 2 0 0 5

,5

C a t e s ’ d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l o b

j e c t e d t h a

t K

. K

. ’ s t e s t i m o n y v

i o l a t e d M

. R

. E v

i d

. 4 0 4

, w

h i c h

p r o h i b i t s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t p r i o r b a d a c t s

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o v e r r u l e d t h e o b j e c t i o n a t t h e

t i m e

, b u t g

r a n t e d a r e q u e s t f

r o m C a t e s ’ c o u n s e l t o b e h e a r d l a t e r o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f

t h e j u r y o n a m o t i o n f

o r a m i s t r i a l

.

¶ 9 K

. K

. ’ s t e s t i m o n y c o n c l u d e d a r o u n d n o o n o n t h e t h i r d d a y o f t r i a l

. A f

t e r s h e

f i n i s h e d

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e j u r y f o r l u n c h a n d h e a r

d C a t e s ’ m o t i o n f

o r a

m i s t r i a l

. O u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y

, C a t e s n o t e d t h a t t h e A m e n d e d I

n f o r m a t i o n

c h a r g e d t w o c o u n t s o f s e x

u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t f

o r a c t s c o m

m i t t e d o n K

. K

. o n

April 17 and May 1 , 2005. Cates asserted that K

. K

. ’ s t e s t i m o n y r e f e r e n c e d o t h e r

i n s t a n c e s o f f

o r c e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 5 a n d S e p t e m

b e r 2 0 0 5

, w

h i l e

t h e y w e r e d a t i n g

. B e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v

i d e t h e r e q u i r e d n o t i c e o f i t s i n t e n t t o

i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e o f o t h e r c r i m e s o r b a d a c t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o K

. K

. p u r s u a n t t o S t a t e v

.

J u s t

, 1 8 4 M o n

t

. 2 6 2

, 6 0 2 P

. 2 d 9 5 7 ( 1 9 7 9 )

, m o d i f i e d b y S t a t e v

. M a t t

, 2 4 9 M o n t

. 1 3 6

, 8 1 4

P

. 2 d 5 2 ( 1 9 9 1 )

. Cates arg ue d that the prosecution’s actions constituted “ c l e a r c u t ”

r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r

, w a r r a n

t i n g a m i s t r i a l

.

¶ 1 0 A f t e r a r g u m e n t f o r a m i s t r i a l o n t h i s b a s i s

, C a t e s t h e n p r e s e n t e d a s e c o n d m o t i o n

f o r a m i s t r i a l t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. D u r i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f K

. K

. , t h e

f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g

e o c c u r r e d :

[Prosecution]: What’s the number

- one rule that I told you about

testifying?

[K.K.]: Calm down. Don’t talk about Defendant’s prior

— [ P r o s e c u t i o n ] : W e l l

, n o t h a t ’ s n o t w

h a t I a m t h i n k i n g a b o u t

. I a m

t h i n k i n g o f t e l l i n g t h e t r

u t h

. [ K

. K

. ] : Y e s

, t h e t r

u t h

, t h e w h o l e t r u t h

, a n d n o t h i n g b u t t h e t r

u t h

.6

¶ 1 1 C a t e s a r g

u e d t h e p r o s e c u

t i o n a s k e d t h i s q u e s t i o n o f K

. K

. e x p e c t i n g t o g

e t t h e

a n s w e r s h e g

a v e

, a n d t h a

t s u c h a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d p r o s e c u t o r i a l m

i s c o n d u c t a s i t w a s

i m p r o p e r v o u c h i n g f o r t h e v e r a c i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, C a t e s a r g

u e d t h i s a c t i o n

b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r a n d a n a

d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d f o r a m i s t r i a l

.

¶ 1 2 T h e C o u r t t

h e n r e c e s s e d f

o r l u n c h

, r e c o n v

e n i n g a t a r o u n d 1 : 2 0 p

. m

. o u t s i d e t h e

p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y

. A t t h a t t i m e

, t h e p r

o s e c u t i o n t e a m o f F e r g

u s C o u n t y A t t o r n e y

T h o m a s P

. M e i s s n e r ( M e i s s n e r ) a n d D e p u t y C o u n t y A t t o r n e y M o n t e B o e t

t g e r ( B o e t t g

e r )

r a i s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a m i s t r i a l m i g

h t b e r e q u i r e d b a s e d o n r e f

e r e n c e s m a d e t o t

h e

v i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n i n t h e i r o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t

. M e i s s n e r o b s e r v e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t t h a t t h e v i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n w a s l i k e l y i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r M c K e e

. M e i s s n e r

i n d i c a t e d t

h a t h e j u s t r e a l i z e d t

h i s t h e p r e v

i o u s e v e n i n g w h i l e w a t c h i n g a r e d a c t e d v e r s i o n

o f t h e v i d e o t a p e w

h i c h h a d b e e n p r e p a r e d f o r t r i a l b y B o e t t g

e r

. M e i s s n e r n o t i c e d t h a t

C a t e s h a d r e q u e s t e d t o s p e a k w i t h h i s p a r e n t s d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n b y O f

f i c e r D a n z e r

.

M e i s s n e r c l a i m e d t h a t t

h i s “ r a n g a b e l l ” f

o r h i m a n d l e d h i m t h a t v e r y m o r n i n g t o c o n d u c t

r e s e a r c h o n t

h i s i s s u e

. I

n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s r e s e a r c h

, h e c a m e u p o n M c K e e a n d r e a l i z e d i t s

p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t o n t h e t r i a l

. A f

t e r d i s c u s s i n g t h e m a t t e r

, M e i s s n e r a n d B o e t t g e r

c o n t a c t e d M u s s e l s h e l l / G o l d e n V a l l e y C o u n t y A t t o r n e y K e n t S i p e ( S i p e )

, w h o m t h e y

knew personally f

r o m t h e t i m e t h a t h e s e r v e d i n t h e F e r g

u s C o u n t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e

, f o r

a s s i s t a n c e i n r e s e a r c h i n g t h e l e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e v i d e o t a p e d c o n f e s s i o n o n t h e t r i a l

.

I n p a r t i c u l a r

, M e i s s n e r i n f o r m e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e S t a t e w a s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e

f a c t t h a t r e f

e r e n c e s t o t

h e v i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n d u r i n g o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s b y t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e e i t h e r r e v e r s i b l e o r p l a i n e r r o r i n l i g h t o f t h e f

a c t t h a t s u c h7

e v i d e n c e w o u l d b e i n a d m i s s i b l e a g a i n s t C a t e s

. A s r e f

l e c t e d i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s

, t h e f

o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g

e t h e n o c c u r r e d a m o n g B o e t t g e r

, M e i s s n e r

, O a a s

,

B e c k

, a n d t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t :

M R

. M E I S S N E R : B a s i c a l l y

, i t a p p e a r s t o u s t h a t t h e c o n f

e s s i o n i s

i n a d m i s s i b l e b e c a u s e [ C a

t e s ] w a s n o t a d v

i s e d o f h i s r i g

h t t o c o n t a c t h i s

p a r e n t s

, s o w

h a t M o n t e [ B o e t

t g e r ] a n d I d i d w e t a l k e d a b o u t t h a t f i r s t t h i n g

t h i s m o r n i n g a n d c a l l e d K e n t [ S i p e ] a n d a s k e d K e n t t o d o s o m e r e s e a r c h

o n i t

, y o u k

n o w

, t o s e e

, y o u k

n o w

, w h e t h e r s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t i s

— o f

c o u r s e

, y o u k

n o w

, w e h a d s o m e c o m m e n t s i n o p e

n i n g s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t

t h a t

, w h e t h e r o r n o t t

h a t w o u l d b e r e v

e r s i b l e e r r o r

, a n d A l l e

n [ B e c k ] i s shaking his head over there.

I don’t know if you guys knew it or not but

— but

— s o t h a t ’ s r e a l l y a

p r o b l e m w i t h t h e r e c o r

d

, a n d I g u e s s i n t a l k i n g a b o u t i t a n d I g u e s s i n v i e w

o f t h e c u r r e n

t m o t i o n f o r m i s t r i a l I a m n o t s u r e t h a t w e a r e g o i n g t o o p p o s e

t h e m o t i o n f

o r m i s t r i a l

. M R

. B O E T T G E R : I f I c o u l d a d d

, Y o u r H o n o r

, t h e p r o b l e m i s

, y o u k

n o w

,

t h e d e f e n s e c e r t a i n l y h a s a n o b l i g ation to raise motions to suppress

evidence and they should have in th is case in our view on that, but that

isn’t

— t h e f

a c t t h a t t h e y d i d n ’ t i s n ’ t a w a i v

e r

. T H E C O U R T : S u r e

. M R

. B O E T T G E R : T h a t w o u l d b e

— w e b e l i e v e t h e s h o r t r e s e a r c h w e h a v

e

b e e n a b l e t o g

e t d o n e i t w o u l d b e p l a i n e r a n d w o u l d b e r e v e a l a b l e even if

it’s not rape and the problem is if we don’t offer the

— we can’t

—

we don’t

believe we can offer that tape but in my own mind I made repeated and

detailed references to the Defendant’s alleged confess ion

— all of which

we don’t obviously offer any evidence on

— i s s t i l l o u t t h e r e

. T H E C O U R T : S u r e

. S o t h e r e i s n o o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n f

o r a

m i s t r i a l ?

MR. MEISSNER: Well, I guess we don’t want to

— we don’t want to

— a

sloppy record that’s going to cause th at anyway, I guess, and I don’t know.

I think there is enough of a concern that maybe that’s the state of it now.

THE COURT: Well, my only

— the only reason I made you repeat that is

because I

— I would prefer that we have a mistrial on an appropriate issue

a n d I j u s t d o n ’ t k

n o w w h e t h e r t h i s l a s t i s s u e r a i s e d b y M r

. O a a s i s g r o u n d s

f o r a m i s t r i a l o r n o t a n d i f w e a r e g o i n g t o h a v

e a m i s t r i a l I w o u l d r a

t h e r do it on this basis than one I have not researched or have a, you know,

have grounding for.

I don’t kno w if that makes a big difference in the scheme of things

but

— M r

. O a a s

. M R

. O A A S : I h a v

e n o t h i n g t o s a y

, Y o u r H o n o r

.8

T H E C O U R T : A l l r i g

h t

. M r

. B e c k

. M R

. B E C K : Y e s

, I h a v e s o m e t h i n g t o s a y

. F i r s t

. . . [ t ] h e f a c t t h a t t h e

S t a t e c a m e f

o r w a r d a s i t h a s I t h i n k o n l y r e i n f o r c e s m y o p i n i o n t h a t

. . .

t r u l y s e e k i n g t h e t r

u t h a n d I w a n t t o t

h a n k t h e m f o r i t a n d I a p p r e c i a t e i t

. T H E C O U R T : O k a y

. MR. MEISSNER: I would say that we did speak with Kent Sipe over the

noon hour and he was actually in the Yellowstone County Attorney’s

Office with a friend he had down there named Chris and they had been

talking about it this morning and gave us some advice and they

— t h e y

t h o u g h t t h a t i t w o u l d b e a p l a i n e r r o r k i n d o f t h i n g i f t h a t c o n f e s s i o n d i d

c o m e i n t o e v

i d e n c e a n d t h e c i t e i s S t a t e v e r s u s M c K e e

, d e c i d e d i n J a n u a r y

o f t h i s y e a r

, 3 3 0 M o n t

. 2 4 9

, a n d I t h i n k i t p r e t t y c l e a r l y s a y s t h a t i f t h e

y o u t h i s n o t a

d v i s e d o f t h e r i g

h t t o p a r e n t a

l n o t i f i c a t i o n a n y s t a t e m e n t s

m a d e a r e s u p p r e s s i b l e

. T H E C O U R T : O k a y

. A l l r i g h t

. I w i l l d e c l a r e m

i s t r i a l

, a n d t h e

n i f t h e r e i s

a n y t h i n g e l s e a f

t e r w e s e n d t h e j u r y h o m e t h a t y o u n e e d t o p u t o n t h e

record we will do so. I

— I extend the same kudos to you two as Mr. Beck.

Once again, you showed fine, professional conduct. I know it’s not easy

for you.

¶ 1 3 T h e j u r y w a s t h e n d i s m i s s e d

, a n d t h e p a r t i e s r e c o n v e n e d i n c o u r t

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t a s k e d t

h e p r o s e c u

t i o n i f i t h a d a n y

t h i n g f u r t h e r t o a

d d

. T h e S t a t e t h e n r e q u e s t e d a

s c h e d u l i n g c o n f

e r e n c e a n d i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d s e e k t o r e

- f i l e t h e c h a r g

e s a g a i n s t

Cates. Oaas expressed concerns that such action would violate his client ’ s r i g h t s a g a i n s t

d o u b l e j e o p a r d y

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g r e e d t h a t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y c o n c e r

n s w e r e

p o t e n t i a l l y p r e s e n t

, a

n d a d v i s e d c o u n s e l f

o r b o t h p a r t i e s t o b r i e f t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y

i s s u e

.

¶ 1 4 C a t e s s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e A m e n d e d I n f o r m a t i o n o n d o u b l e

j e o p a r d y g r o u n d s

. A f

t e r t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y t h e m o t i o n w e r e f u l l y b r i e f e d

, t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g o n F e b r u a r y 1 4

, 2 0 0 7

. A t t h e h e a r i n g

, b o t h s i d e s p r e s e n t e d

a r g u m e n t a n d S i p e w a s c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y b y t h e S t a t e t o e x

p l a i n h i s r o l e i n a s s i s t i n g t h e

S t a t e w i t h r e s e a r c h o n t

h e M c K e e i s s u e

. S i p e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t o n e o f t h e c h i e f c o n c e r n s9

d r i v i n g h i s r e s e a r c h o n t

h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e v i d e o t a p e w a s w h e t h e r t h e f a i l u r e t o s e e k

i t s s u p p r e s s i o n w a s a l e g i t i m a t e t r i a l t a c t i c o r c o n s t i t u t e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

counsel. At any rate, Sipe concluded from his research

— a n d a d v i s e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

team

— t h a t i t w o u l d b e r e v

e r s i b l e e r r o r f

o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t t o c o n t i n

u e w i t h t h e t r i a l o f

t h e c a s e u n d e r i t s p r e s e n t p o s t u r e

, g i v e n t h e r e f

e r e n c e s t o t h e v

i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n i n

o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s

.

¶ 1 5 In support of his motion

, O a a s m a d e i t c l e a r t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s f

a i l u r e t o m o v

e

f o r s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e v

i d e o t a p e w a s a t r i a l t a c t i c b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) t h e d e f e n s e c o u l d u s e t

h e

t a p e i n l i e u o f C a t e s h i m s e l f t e s t i f y i n g ; ( 2 ) t h e v

i d e o t a p e w o u l d a s s i s t i n i m p e a c h i n g t h e

testimony of Officer Danzer; and (3) t h e t a p e o n l y r e f

e r e n c e d t h e “ l e a s t c r e d i b l e ” o f

C a t e s ’ a l l e g

e d v i c t i m s

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, O a a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e v i d e o t a p e d i d n o t a c t u a l l y

c o n s t i t u t e a c o n f

e s s i o n b y C a t e s

, a n d t h a t O f f i c e r D a n z e r m

i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e

“ c o n f e s s i o n a l ” n a

t u r e o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n i n a

n i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e p o r t s h e p r e p a r e d

.

Additionally, Cate s argued that the prosecution was sim p l y “ g o a d i n g ” C a t e s i n t o

o b t a i n i n g a m

i s t r i a l

. O a a s a r g

u e d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u

t i o n w a n t e d a m i s t r i a l

, a n d a c h a

n c e t o

r e t r y C a t e s o n t h e c h a r g

e s

, d u e t o i n f

i r m i t i e s i n i t s c a s e

. T h e s e i n f i r m i t i e s i n c l u d e d t

h e

S t a t e ’ s f a i l u r e t o s u b m

i t e i t h e r t h e u s e d c o n d o m o r t h e r a p e k i t t o t h e S t a t e C r i m e L a b f o r

t e s t i n g

, t h e c o m

p r o m i s e d c r e d i b i l i t y o f o n e o f t h e S t a t e ’ s k e y w i t n e s s e s

, c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n

t h e t e s t i m o n y o f O f

f i c e r D a n z e r

, a n d t h e a

l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e i n t e

n t i o n a l l y s o u g

h t

t e s t i m o n y f

r o m K

. K

. c o n c e r n i n g C a t e s ’ p r i o r b a d a c t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f M

. R

. E v i d

. 4 0 4 ( b )

a n d J u s t n o t i c e r e q

u i r e m e n t s

.1 0

¶ 1 6 On April 2, 2007, the District Court d e n i e d C a t e s ’ m o t i o n u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f

S t a t e v

. C

a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n t

. 4 1 2

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d 5 3 2 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. U n d e r t h i s a u t h o r i t y

, a s e c o n d

criminal trial of Cates would be barred unless there was a “ ‘ m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y ’ t o

terminate the trial or [the] d e f e n d a n t a c q u i e s c e d i n t h e t e r m

i n a t i o n

. ” C

a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n t

.

a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d a

t 5 3 5

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e t w o d e f

e n s e m i s t r i a l

m o t i o n s p r e s e n t e d t o i t

, a n d t h a t n e i t h e r o f t h e m w a s e x

p l i c i t l y r u l e d u p o n

. I n s t e a d

, t h e

District Court observed that it had wanted to declare a mistrial on an “ a p p r o p r i a t e i s s u e

. ”

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w e n t o n t o n o t e t h a t n e i t h e r p a r t y t o o k a d e f i n i t i v e s t a n d w i t h r e s p e c t

t o t h e m o t i o n f

o r a m i s t r i a l

, a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e i t s e l f n e v e r e x p l i c i t l y m o v

e d f o r a m i s t r i a l

o n t h e b a s i s o f M

c K e e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e n c l a r i f i e d t h e g r o u n d s f o r t h e d e c l a r e d

m i s t r i a l a s f

o l l o w s :

T h e C o u r t ’ s i n t e n

t a n d p u r p o s e f o r d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l w a s t o s t o p a

t r i a l w h i c h w a s i n a p o s i t i o n w

h e r e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n

h a d b e e n r e p e a t e d l y m a d e k

n o w n t o t h e j u r y

, y e t t h e e v i d e n c e a b o u t t h a t

c o n f e s s i o n w a s i n a d m

i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o M

c K e e

. This Court’s observation

and conclusion is clearly and convincingly that both sides acquiesced in

t h e C o u r t ’ s s u a s

p o n t e d e c l a r a

t i o n o f a m

i s t r i a l

. N e i t h e r p a r t y o b j e c t e d

. B e c a u s e t h e s t a n d a r

d s c i t e d a b o v

e r e q u i r e f

o c u s o n t h e D e f

e n d a n t

, t h e

C o u r t n o t e s t h a t t h e D e f

e n d a n t g a i n e d w h a t h e w a n t e d

, w i t h c r e a m o n t h e cake, a mistrial and a tactical advantage regarding possible double

jeopardy.

¶ 1 7 The District Court concluded that Cates ’ r e t r i a l w o u l d n o t b e b a r r e d u n d e r C a r n e y

b a s e d o n h i s a c q u i e s c e n c e t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. E v e n t h o u g h t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t C a t e s ’ a c q u i e s c e n c e w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o d e

n y h i s d o u b l e

j e o p a r d y a r g

u m e n t

, i t t h e n w e n

t o n t o a n a l y z e C a t e s ’ m o t i o n u n d e r t h e “ m a n i f

e s t

necessity” standard as well. U nder this standard , a trial may be “ ‘ d i s c o n t i n u e d w h e n1 1

p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a n i f e s t a n e c e s s i t y f

o r s o d o i n g

, a n d w

h e n f a i l u r e t o

discontinue would defeat the ends of justice. ’ ” C a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n

t

. a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d a

t

5 3 5 ( q u o t i n g W a d e v

. H u n t e r

, 3 3 6 U

. S

. 6 8 4

, 6 9 0

, 6 9 S

. C t

. 8 3 4

, 8 3 8 ( 1 9 4 9 ) )

. I n t h i s

r e g a r d

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e “ p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e

n u m e r o u s r e f

e r e n c e s t o c o n f

e s s i o n a n d t h e i n a d m

i s s i b i l i t y o f t h a t c o n f

e s s i o n c r e a t e d a

l e g a l p i v o t p o i n t s u c h t h a

t t h e e n d s o f j u s t i c e w o u l d c l e a r l y h a v e b e e n d e f

e a t e d i f t h e t r i a l

had c o n t i n

u e d

. ” T h u s

, m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y f

o r a m i s t r i a l w a s p r e s e n t

.

¶ 1 8 A d d i t i o n a l l y

, t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e

j e c t e d C a t e s ’ a r g

u m e n t t h a

t h e h a d b e e n

“ g o a d e d ” i n t o a m

i s t r i a l o r t h a

t t h e S t a t e w a s t r y i n g t o m a n e u v

e r t h e c o u r

t i n t o d e c l a r i n g

a m i s t r i a l t o a c h i e v

e a s e c o n d

, b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n v

i c t C a t e s

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o u n d t h a t t h e p r

o s e c u t i o n t e a m h a d a c t e d p r o f e s s i o n a l l y a n d t

h a t n o n e o f t h e a l l e g

e d

evidentiary infirmities in the pros e c u t i o n ’ s c a s e h a d m o t i v a t e d i t t o s e e k a m

i s t r i a l

.

I n s t e a d

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e “ f

a c t s a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s c l e a r l y a n d

c o n v i n c i n g l y d e m o n s t r a t e t h a

t t h e m a t t e r w a s n o t a m a n e u v e r i n g b u t a l e g i t i m a t e

, t r i a l

time bomb which the State stron gly believed required Court att e n t i o n a n d a c t i o n

. ” T h u s

,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y t o d e c l a r e a m i s t r i a l

,

and that this fact as well as Cates ’ a c q u i e s c e n c e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s r e n d e r e d d o u b l e

j e o p a r d y c o n c e r

n s i n a p p l i c a b l e

.

¶ 1 9 C a t e s n o w a p p e a l s t h e d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

, p r e s e n t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g

i s s u e o n a p p e a l :1 2

¶ 2 0 D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t

s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c l a r i n

g a m i s t r i a l

, a n d d i d i t e r r i n

concluding that C

a t e s ’ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i

g h t t o b e f r e e f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r d y d i d n o t b a r

h i s r e t r i a l ?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 2 1 A t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e c l a r e a m i s t r i a l i s r e v i e w e d f

o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

.

S t a t e v

. F l o r e s , 1998 MT 3 2 8

, ¶ 1 2

, 2 9 2 M o n t

. 2 5 5

, 9 7 4 P

. 2 d 1 2 4 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. M o r a n

,

2 3 1 M o n t

. 3 8 7

, 3 8 9

, 7 5 3 P

. 2 d 3 3 3

, 3 3 6 ( 1 9 8 8 ) )

. I f a t r i a l j u d g e a c t e d r a t i o n a l l y a n d

r e s p o n s i b l y i n d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m h i s o r h e r d e c i s i o n

. Flores

, ¶ 1 2

.

¶ 2 2 A d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s o n d o u b l e

j e o p a r d y g

r o u n d s p r e s e n

t s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w w

h i c h w e r e v i e w f

o r c o r r e c t n e s s

. S t

a t e v

.

Maki

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 7 9

, ¶ 9

, 3 4 7 M o n t

. 2 4

, 1 9 6 P

. 3 d 1 2 8 1 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. C e c h

, 2 0 0 7 M T

1 8 4

, ¶ 7

, 3 3 8 M o n

t

. 3 3 0

, 1 6 7 P

. 3 d 3 8 9 )

.

DISCUSSION

¶ 2 3 C a t e s a r g

u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

. E v e n

t h o u g h h e d i d i n i t i a l l y r a i s e t h e p r o s p e c t o f a m i s t r i a l

, C a t e s a s s e r t s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

a c t u a l l y d e c l a r e d a m

i s t r i a l s u a s p o n

t e

. H e a l s o a s s e r t s t

h a t h e d i d n o t c o n s e n t t o t h e

m i s t r i a l

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

, C a t e s m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f a m i s t r i a l w i t h s t a n d s

s c r u t i n y o n l y i f i t i s s u p p o r

t e d b y m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y

.

¶ 2 4 C a t e s m a i n t a i n s m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y i s l a c k i n g i n t h i s c a s e

. H e a r g u e s t h a t i n

g r a n t i n g a m

i s t r i a l t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s i m p l y b a i l e d o u

t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f

r o m a s i t u a t i o n i n

w h i c h i t w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o p r

o d u c e e v i d e n c e w h i c h i t r e f

e r r e d t o i n o p e n i n g

s t a t e m e n t s

, a n d a l s o p r o v i d e d t h e S t a t e a

n o p p o r t u

n i t y t o h a v

e t h e r a p e k i t a n d u s e d1 3

c o n d o m a n a l y z e d b y t h e S t a t e C r i m e L a b

. I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n

, C a t e s a s s e r t s t h a t t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s r e f

e r e n c e t o t h e v

i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n i n i t s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t w a s r e a l l y

n o t t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t a s t h e p r

o s e c u t i o n o n l y r e f

e r r e d t o t h e c o n f

e s s i o n o n a l i m

i t e d b a s i s

.

Instead, the real problem with the case was the p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s f a i l u r e t o h a v

e e v i d e n c e

tested for use at trial and properly support its case

— a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h h a s n o w b e e

n

r e m e d i e d b y t h e d e c l a r a

t i o n o f a m i s t r i a l a n d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e t r y C a t e s o n t h e c h a r g e s

c o n t a i n e d i n t h e A m e n d e d I n f o r m a t i o n

.

¶ 2 5 C a t e s a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t a n y s i l e n c e o r f a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t t o t h e m i s t r i a l d o e s n o t

e q u a t e t o c o n s e n

t

, a n d t h a t b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t c o n s e n t t o t h e m i s t r i a l

, d o u

b l e j e o p a r d y

p r o t e c t i o n s p r e v

e n t h i m f r o m b e i n g p r o s e c u t e d a

n e w o n t h e c h a r g

e s i n t h e A m e n d e d

I n f o r m a t i o n

. C a t e s a s s e r t s t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e w e i g

h t o f a u t h o r i t y f

r o m

o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s s u c h a s S t a t e v

. F e n t o n

, 5 0 6 P

. 2 d 6 6 5 ( A

r i z

. A p p

. 2 D i v

. 1 9 7 3 )

, C

u r r y

v

. S u p

. C t

. o f t h e C i t y a n d C o

. o f S a n F r a n c i s c o

, 4 7 0 P

. 2 d 3 4 5 ( C a l

. 1 9 7 0 )

, a n d S t

a t e v

.

W e r n e t h

, 6 1 1 P

. 2 d 1 0 2 6 ( I d a h o 1 9 8 0 )

, w h i c h h o l d t h a

t s i l e n c e o r f

a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t d o e s

n o t c o n s t i t

u t e c o n s e n

t t o a m i s t r i a l

.

¶ 2 6 T h e S t a t e u r g

e s u s t o a f

f i r m

, c l a i m i n g t h a t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o t e c t i o n s d o n o t b a r

C a t e s ’ r e t r i a l o n t h e c h a r g e s s i n c e m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y t o d e c l a r e a m i s t r i a l w a s p r e s e n t

based on t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e i n a d m

i s s i b l e v i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n d u r i n g

o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t s

. T h e S t a t e

, c i t i n g t o C a r n e y

, a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y

c l a u s e d o e s n o t b a r C a t e s ’ r e t r i a l b e c a u s e h e a c q u i e s c e d i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t

h e

p r o c e e d i n g s

. I

n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n

, t

h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t w e e x a m

i n e d t h e q

u e s t i o n o f

d e f e n s e a c q u i e s c e n c e t o a m i s t r i a l i n K

e a t i n g v

. S h e r l o c k

, 2 7 8 M o n

t

. 2 1 8

, 9 2 4 P

. 2 d 1 2 9 71 4

( 1 9 9 6 )

, a n d t

h a t K e a t i n g s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t

h a t C a t e s a c q u i e s c e d t o a m

i s t r i a l u n d e r

t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e

. I n p a r t i c u l a r

, t h e S t a

t e n o t e s t h a t C a t e s w a s t h e p a r t y w h o

o r i g i n a l l y m o v

e d f o r a m i s t r i a l a n d t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e

S t a t e a s s e r t s t

h a t o n c e t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t m a d e c l e a r i t s i n t e

n t i o n t o d e c l a r e a m

i s t r i a l

,

C a t e s w a s g i v

e n a m p l e o p p o r t

u n i t y b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o w i t h d r a w h i s m o t i o n f o r a

m i s t r i a l

, s t u d y t h e m a t t e r f u r t h e r

, o r r a i s e a n o b

j e c t i o n

. H o w e v

e r

, C a t e s d i d n o t a v

a i l

h i m s e l f o f t h e s e o p p o r t u

n i t i e s

. W h e n g i v e n t h e o p p o r

t u n i t y t o s p e a k

, i n f

a c t

, o n e d e f

e n s e

a t t o r n e y a f f i r m a t i v e l y d e c l i n e d t o m a k e a n y o b j e c t i o n s o r e x

p r e s s a n y c o n c e r n s

. I

n l i g h t

o f t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s f

a c t u a l f i n d i n g s t h a t

C a t e s a c q u i e s c e d t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s a n d

m u s t b e a c c e p t e d

.

¶ 2 7 A d d i t i o n a l l y

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t C a t e s c a n b e r e t i r e d f o r t h e s e o f

f e n s e s b e c a u s e

h e w a i v e d h i s r i g

h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r

o c e e d i n g s p u r s u a n t t o

§ 4 6

- 1 1

- 5 0 3 ( 2 ) ( a )

, M C A

. T h i s s t a t u t e s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e

n t p a r t t h e f

o l l o w i n g :

( 2 ) A p r o s e c u t i o n b a s e d u p o n t h e s a m e t r a n s a c t i o n a s a f o r m e r

p r o s e c u t i o n [ w

h i c h w a s t e r m i n a t e d f

o r r e a s o n s n o t a m o u n t i n g t o a n

a c q u i t t a l ] i s n o t b a r r e d w

h e n : ( a ) t h e d e f

e n d a n t c o n s e n t s t o t

h e t e r m i n a t i o n o r w

a i v e s t h e r i g h t t o

o b j e c t t o t h e t e r

m i n a t i o n

. . . .

Section 46

- 11

- 503(2)(a), MCA (emphasis added).

¶ 2 8 F i n a l l y

, t h e S t a

t e u r g e s t h i s C o u r t t o r e

j e c t C a t e s ’ a r g

u m e n t t h a t h i s s i l e n c e o r

f a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t t o t h e m i s t r i a l w a s i n s u f

f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u

t e a c q u i e s c e n c e t o t h e m

i s t r i a l

.

T h e S t a t e a s s e r t s t h a t t h e c a s e s r e l i e d u p o n b y C a t e s f o r t h i s a r g

u m e n t a r e a l l

d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e

.1 5

¶ 2 9 I n r e p l y

, C a t e s a s s e r t s t h a t K e a t i n g i s d i s t i n g

u i s h a b l e a n d r e p e a

t s h i s a r g u m e n t t h a

t

he did not consent to t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s s u a s p o n t e d e c l a r a t i o n o f a m i s t r i a l

, a n d t h a t

t h e r e w a s n o t m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y t o g

r a n t a m i s t r i a l

. C a t e s a r g

u e s a r e t r i a l w o u l d s i m

p l y

g i v e t h e S t a

t e a s e c o n d

, b e t

t e r c h a n c e t o c o n v

i c t h i m a n d t o d o s o w o u l d v i o l a t e h i s r i g

h t

t o b e f r e e f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r

d y

.

¶ 3 0 T h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e o f t h e F i f

t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

C o n s t i t u t i o n

, a n d A r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 2 5 o f t h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n

, p r o t e c t c i t i z e n s f

r o m

b e i n g p l a c e d t w i c e i n j e o p a r d y f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e

. J e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s o n c e a j u r y i s

s w o r n a n d i m

p a n e l e d

. C

a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n t

. a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d a t 5 3 5

. A s t h e U

n i t e d S t a t e s

S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e x

p l a i n e d

,

[u] n d e r l y i n g t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a

l s a f e g u a r d i s t h e b e l i e f t h a t “ t h e S t a t e w i t h

a l l i t s r e s o u r c e s a n d p o w e r s h o u l d n o t b e a l l o w e d t o m a k e r e p e a t e d a t t e m p t s

t o c o n v i c t a n i n d i v i d u a l f

o r a n a l l e g

e d o f f e n s e

, t h e r e b y s u b

j e c t i n g h i m t o embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a

continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the

possibilit y t h a t e v

e n t h o u g h i n n o c e n t h e m a y b e f

o u n d g u i l t y

. ”

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. D i n i t

z

, 4 2 4 U

. S

. 6 0 0

, 6 0 6

, 9 6 S

. C t

. 1 0 7 5

, 1 0 7 9 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( q u o t i n g G r e e n v

.

U n i t e d S t a t e s , 355 U.S. 184, 187

- 88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223 ( 1957 ) )

.

¶ 3 1 Moreover, when a mistrial has been declared aft e r j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e s

, “ t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s ‘ v

a l u e d r i g h t t o h a v e h i s t r i a l c o m

p l e t e d b y a p a r t i c u l a r t r i b u n a l ’ i s a l s o

i m p l i c a t e d

. ” D i n i t

z

, 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 6 0 6

, 9 6 S

. C t

. a t 1 0 7 9 ( q u o t i n g W

a d e

, 3 3 6 U

. S

. a t 6 8 9

,

6 9 S

. C t

. a

t 8 3 7 )

.

¶ 3 2 I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n t h a t j e o p a r d y a t t a c h e d t o t

h e p r o c e e d i n g s a g

a i n s t

Cates and that a mistrial was declared

. T h u s

, C a t e s ’ r i g

h t t o b e f r e e f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r d y1 6

is clearly implicated. The question is whether Cates ’ r i g h t a g a i n s t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y u n d e r

t h e s t a t e a

n d f e d e r a l c o n s t i t

u t i o n s p r e v

e n t s h i m f r o m b e i n g r e t i r e d o n t

h e c h a r g e s s e t f o r t h

i n t h e A m e n d e d I

n f o r m a t i o n

.

¶ 3 3 I n C a r n e y we held that a “ s e c o n d c r i m i n a l t r i a l i s b a r r e d u n l e s s t h e r e w a s a

‘ m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y ’ t o t e r m

i n a t e t h e t r i a l o r [ t

h e ] d e f e n d a n t a c q u i e s c e

d i n t h e

termination. ” C

a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n

t

. a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d a

t 5 3 5 ( e m

p h a s i s a d d e d ) ( c i t i n g W

.

L a F a v e & J

. I s r a e l

, Criminal Procedure § 24.1(d) at 901 (1985) )

. “ M a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y ” i s

present when “

p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a n i f e s t a n e c e s s i t y f

o r s o d o i n g

, a n d w

h e n

failure to discontinue would defeat the ends of justice. ” C a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n t

. a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4

P

. 2 d a t 5 3 5 ( q u o t a

t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; a c c o r d M

o r a n

, 2 3 1 M o n

t

. a t 3 8 9

, 7 5 3 P

. 2 d a t 3 3 4

- 3 5

.

¶ 3 4 The District Court denied C a t e s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i n p a r t o n t h e g

r o u n d s t h a

t h e

a c q u i e s c e d t o t h e m

i s t r i a l

. I n K e a t i n g , we equated acquiescence with “implied consent, ”

a n d s e e m i n g l y e n d o r s e d t h e v

i e w t h a t i m

p l i e d c o n s e n t o r a c q u i e s c e n c e t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n

of trial proceedings can be inferred from a defendant’s “statements or s i l e n c e s ” o r a

f a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n

. K

e a t i n g

, 2 7 8 M o n t

. a t 2 2 7

- 2 2 9

, 9 2 4 P

. 2 d a t 1 3 0 2

- 0 3

( d i s c u s s i n g U

n i t e d S t a t e s v

. S

m i t h

, 6 2 1 F

. 2 d 3 5 0 ( 9 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 0 ) )

. A s C a t e s n o t e s

, s o m e

courts are critical of the notion that “ a c q u i e s c e n c e ” o r “ m e r e s i l e n c e o r f a i l u r e t o o b

j e c t t o

t h e j u r y ’ s d i s c h a r g

e ” i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u

t e a w a i v e r o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o t e c t i o n s

.

S e e F e n t o n

, 5 0 6 P

. 2 d a

t 6 6 7

. I n f a c t

, L a F a v e a n d I s r a e l

, t h e l e g a l p r o g e n i t o r s o f t h e

“acquiescence” o r “ i m

p l i e d c o n s e n t ” s t a n d a r

d i n M o n t a n a l a w

, a r e c r i t i c a l o f t h i s

a p p r o a c h a s w e l l

. S e e W a y n e R

. L a F a v

e a n d J e r o l d H

. I s r a e l

, C r i m i n a l P

r o c e d u r e

§ 2 5

. 2 ( a )

, 6 5 0

- 5 1 ( 2 d e d

. , W e s t 1 9 9 9 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m

i t t e d ) ( “ T h i s r e a d i n e s s o f m a n y1 7

c o u r t s t o e

n g r a f t u p o n t h e c o n s e n t d o c t r i n e n o t i o n s o f t a c i t c o n s e n t o r c o n s t r u c t i v e

c o n s e n t t h a

t e x p a n d t h e c o n c e

p t f a r b e y o n d i t s j u s t i f

i a b l e l i m i t s h a s b e e n r i g h t l y

c r i t i c i z e d

. ” )

.

¶ 3 5 A t t h e s a m e t i m e

, o t h e r c o u r t s h a v e c o n c l u d e d t

h a t i f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h e a f f i r m a t i v e c o n d u c t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o w t h a t s h e w a i v e d h e r

r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t

h e p r o c e e d i n g s

, t h e n d o u

b l e j e o p a r d y p r o t e c t i o n s

w i l l n o t b a r h e r r e t r i a l

. S e e W e r n e t h

, 6 1 1 P

. 2 d a t 1 0 2 8 ; C u r r y

, 4 7 0 P

. 2 d a

t 3 4 8 ; M a r s h a l l

v

. O h i o

, 4 4 3 F

. S u p p

. 2 d 9 1 1

, 9 1 7

- 1 8 ( N

. D

. O h i o 2 0 0 6 ) ; s e e a l s o P e r e t z v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

,

5 0 1 U

. S

. 9 2 3

, 9 3 6

, 1 1 1 S

. C t

. 2 6 6 1

, 2 6 6 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; I n r e S h a l e

, 1 5 8 P

. 3 d 5 8 8

, 5 9 4 ( W a s h

.

2007); 63 A.L.R.2d 782

, § 3 [ b ]

, 4 6 4

- 6 5 ( W e s t S u p p

. 2 0 0 8 )

. M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y

,

§ 4 6

- 1 1

- 5 0 3 ( 2 ) ( a )

, M C A

, s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v

i d e s t h a t a p r o s e c u t i o n b a s e d u p o n t h e s a m e

t r a n s a c t i o n a s a f

o r m e r p r o s e c u t i o n w

h i c h w a s t e r m

i n a t e d f o r r e a s o n s n o t a m o u n t i n g t o

a n a c q u i t t a l i s n o t b a r r e d i f t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n s e n

t s t o o r w a i v

e s h i s o r h e r r i g

h t t o o b j e c t

t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. See ¶ 2 7

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, i f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h e a f f i r m a t i v e c o n d u c t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o w t h a t s h e w a i v e d h e r

r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s

, t h e n a r e t r i a l w i l l n o t b e b a r r e d o n

d o u b l e j e o p a r d y g

r o u n d s

.

¶ 3 6 I n t h e p r e s e n

t c a s e

, t h e t o t a l i t y o f t

h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t C a t e s

a f f i r m a t i v e l y w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. D u r i n g t h e

r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f c o l l o q u y w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, w h i c h w a s i n i t i a t e d b y C a t e s

, C a t e s

h i m s e l f p u t f

o r t h t w o s e p a r a t e m

i s t r i a l m o t i o n s b e f

o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c l a r e d a

mistrial . This conduct demonstrated that he was clearly w i l l i n g t o g i v e u p h i s “ v

a l u e d1 8

right to have his trial completed by [the] particular t r i b u n a l ” w h i c h w a s s w o r n a n d

i m p a n e l e d i n t h i s c a s e

, w

h i c h r i g h t i s a t t h e c o r e o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n t o b e f

r e e

f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r

d y

. S e e D i n i t

z

, 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 6 0 6

, 9 6 S

. C t

. a t 1 0 7 9

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, o n c e

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m a d e i t c l e a r t o a l l p a r t i e s t h a t i t w a s g r a n t i n g a m

i s t r i a l s u a s p o n t e o n

t h e g r o u n d s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o r u s h t h e

d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e m

i s t r i a l

, a n d s p e c i f

i c a l l y g a v e O a a s a n d B e c k a c h a n c e t o b e h e a r d

, o r

v oice an objection. A t t

h a t p o i n t

, C a

t e s ’ c o u n s e l c o u l d h a v

e w i t h d r a w

n t h e i r p r e v i o u s

m o t i o n s o r v

o i c e d a n o b

j e c t i o n t o t h e m

i s t r i a l

. I n s t e a d

, O a a s a f

f i r m a t i v e l y o f

f e r e d t h a t h e

h a d n o t h i n g t o s a y

, a n d B e c k t h a n k e d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t e a m f

o r c o m i n g f

o r w a r d

. T h i s

c o n s t i t u t e s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e m o n s t r a t i o n

, a n d n o t m e r e s i l e n c e o r p a s s i v e a s s e n t t h a

t

C a t e s w a s v o l u n t a r i l y r e l i n q u i s h i n g h i s r i g

h t t o p r o c e e d b e f

o r e t h i s j u r y

, a n d w a i v i n g h i s

r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. S e e D i n i t z

, 4 2 4 U

. S

. a t 6 0 8

- 0 9

, 9 6

S. Ct. at 1080. T h u s

, u

n d e r § 4 6

- 1 1

- 5 0 3 ( 2 ) ( a )

, M C A

, h i s r e t r i a l o n t h e c h a r g e s i n t h e

A m e n d e d I

n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t b a r r e d

, a n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g h i s

m otion to dismiss. 1

¶ 3 7 Finally, we recognize t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t “ m a n i f

e s t

n e c e s s i t y ” r e q u i r e d t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t i t w a s u n n e c e s s a r y

f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t t o r e a c h t h i s q u e s t i o n i n l i g h t o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e p r e s e n t e d

,

a n d d e c l i n e t o r e l y u p o n s u c h g r o u n d s f o r o u r d e c i s i o n

.

1 I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n

, i

t i s w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t C a t e s h a s n o t c

h a l l e n g e d t h e c o n s t i

t u t i o n a l i t y o f

§ 4 6

- 1 1

- 5 0 3 ( 2 ) ( a )

, M C A

, a t a n y p o i n t i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i

n g s

.1 9

¶ 3 8 I n h i s D i s s e n t

, J

u s t i c e L e a p h a r t a r g

u e s t h a t a d e f

e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t b e d e e m e d t o

w a i v e a n o b

j e c t i o n t o a m

i s t r i a l u n l e s s t h e r e i s “ a s p e c i f i c

, o n

- t h e

- r e c o r d w a i v

e r f r o m t h e

defendant h i m s e l f

. ” ( L e a p h a r t D i s s e n t

, ¶ 6 4 )

. J u s t i c e L e a p h a r t a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t

, c o n t r a r y

to the District Court’s conclusion

, t h e e l e m e n t o f m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y i s “ c o m

p l e t e l y

l a c k i n g

, ” a n d t

h e r e f o r e t h e “ a c q u i e s c e n c e / c o n s e n t p r o n g m u s t b e a l l t h e m o r e c o m

p e l l i n g ;

that is consent must be explicit, on

- the

- record and from the defendant h i m s e l f

. ”

( L e a p h a r t D i s s e n t

, ¶ 6 7

. )

¶ 3 9 W e n o t e t h a

t t h e s e a r g

u m e n t s w e r e n o t r a i s e d b y C a t e s

, e i t h e r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

o r o n a p p e a l

. N o n e t

h e l e s s

, t h e c o n c e r n s r a i s e d b y J u s t i c e L e a p h a r t

, a n d s i m i l a r o n e s

r a i s e d b y J

u s t i c e N e l s o n i n h i s D i s s e n t

, a r e v a l i d

. B u t w

h a t m a k e s t h i s c a s e u n i q u e a n d

a n o m a l o u s f

r o m a d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p e r s p e c t i v e i s t h e f a c t t h a t C a t e s h a d t w o m i s t r i a l

m o t i o n s o n t h e t a

b l e a t t h e t i m e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i d e d t o d e c l a r e a m i s t r i a l s u a

sponte

— a f

a c t t h e D i s s e n t s t e n d t o i g n o r e

. T h i s i s t h e c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n o u r d i s p o s i t i o n o f

this matter ; were this not so, o u r d e c i s i o n m i g h t i n d e e d b e d i f

f e r e n t

. C a t e s ’ p e n d i n g

m i s t r i a l m o t i o n s i n d i c a t e u n e q u i v o c a l l y t h a t h e w a s g

i v i n g u p h i s v

a l u e d r i g h t t o h a v e t h e

p a r t i c u l a r t r i b u

n a l s w o r n a n d i m

p a n e l e d i n t h i s c a s e t r y t h e m a t t e r

, w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

t h a t h e w o u l d h a v

e t o f a c e a n o t h e r j u r y i n t h e f u t u r e

. S e e U

n i t e d S t a t e s v

. R a z m i l o v i c

,

5 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 3 0

, 1 4 1 ( 2 d C i r

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m

i t t e d ) ( “ [ W ] h e n t

h e d e f e n d a n t r e q

u e s t s a

m i s t r i a l

, h e i s d e e m e d t o h a v e d e l i b e r a

t e l y e l e c t e d t o f

o r g o h i s v a l u e d r i g h t t o h a v e h i s

g uilt or innocence determined bef o r e t h e f i r s t t r i e r o f f

a c t

. ” )

.

¶ 4 0 H e r e

, C a t e s n e v

e r w i t h d r e w h i s m i s t r i a l m o t i o n s o r o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d t o t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a

t h e w a s n o w c h a n g i n g c o u r s e a n d w a n t e d t o h a v e t h e o r i g i n a l t r i b u n a

l2 0

d e t e r m i n e h i s g u i l t

. T h u s

, t h e s i t u a t i o n b e f o r e t h e C o u r t i s a f a r c r y f r o m t h o s e s c e n a r i o s

i n w h i c h t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s w i l l i n g

n e s s t o f o r g o d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r o t e c t i o n s i s q u e s t i o n a b l e

o r u n k n o w n

. I n R a z m i l o v i c

, f

o r i n s t a n c e

, o n e o f t w o c o

- d e f e n d a n t s i n a c r i m

i n a l t r i a l

i n i t i a l l y r e q u e s t e d a m i s t r i a l b a s e d o n a d e a d l o c k e d j u r y

, b u t t h e n i m m e d i a t e l y s o u g

h t t o

p o l l t h e j u r y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s a s t o h i s g u i l t b e f o r e a n y m

i s t r i a l m o t i o n

w a s f i n a l i z e d

. R a z m i l

o v i c

, 5 0 7 F

. 3 d a

t 1 4 1

. T h e t r i a l c o u r

t h u r r i e d l y w e n t a h e a

d w i t h t h e

mistrial nonetheless and did not give co

- d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o u n s e l t

h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p o l l t

h e

j u r y o r f i n a l i z e i t s p o s i t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m

i s t r i a l

. T h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t

retrial of the co

- defendants was barred be c a u s e c o u n s e l ’ s a c t i o n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e w a s

u n s u r e i f h e r e a l l y w a n t e d a m i s t r i a l a f t e r a l l

, a n d t h u s t h e c o

- d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t

“deliberately forego[] his right to have his guilt determined by his o r i g i n a l t r i b u n a l

. ”

R a z m i l o v i c

, 5 0 7 F

. 3 d a t 1 4 2

. H a v i n g a l r e a d y t w i c e e x

p r e s s e d h i s w i l l i n g

n e s s t o t e r m

i n a t e

t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b y p u t t i n g f o r t h t w o m

i s t r i a l m o t i o n s

, C a t e s n e v e r w a v e r e d n o r e x

p r e s s e d

a n y m i s g i v i n g s

, e v e n w

h e n g i v e n t h e o p p o r

t u n i t y t o d o s o

. T h u s

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t u n d e r

t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s C a t e s w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s

.

CONCLUSION

¶ 4 1 W e d e c i d e t h i s c a s e b a s e d s o l e l y a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y u p o n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s l e a d i n g

t o t h e d e c l a r a

t i o n o f t h e m

i s t r i a l i n t h i s c a s e

, i n c l u d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t C a t e s t w i c e m o v e d

for a mistrial during the District C o u r t ’ s b r i e f c o l l o q u y w i t h c o u

n s e l

, a n d t

h a t h e

affirmatively declined when offered the opportunity to object to the District C o u r t ’ s

d e c l a r a t i o n o f a m i s t r i a l

. W e d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s h e r e w h e t h e r s i l e n c e o r p a s s i v e2 1

a c q u i e s c e n c e t o a m

i s t r i a l d e c l a r a t i o n c a n o v e r c o m e a d e f

e n d a n t ’ s f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t t o

b e f r e e f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r

d y

. W e l e a v

e t h i s q u e s t i o n f

o r a f u t u r e c a s e

, t h e f

a c t s o f w h i c h

p l a c e t h i s i m

p o r t a n t c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l i s s u e s q u a r e l y b e f

o r e u s

. A f

f i r m e d

.

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / J O H N W A R N E R

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S

/ S / J I M R I C E

Justice James C. Nelson, dissenting.

¶ 4 2 I dissent. Although I agree with the Court’s recitation of the well

- established legal

principles, I strenuously disa g r e e w i t h t h e C o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h o s e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e

f a c t u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e

. M o r e o v e r

, I b e l i e v

e t h e C o u r

t e l e v a t e s f o r m o v e r

s u b s t a n c e a n d o v

e r l o o k s c r i t i c a l f

a c t s b e a r i n g o n t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r C a t e s c o n s e n t e d t o

or waived his rig

ht to object to the termination of his trial.

¶ 4 3 I begin by reviewing the circumstances which existed at the time the District Court

terminated the trial. It was the thir d day of trial. Part of Cates’ defense was that the

prosecution had misrepresented the statements he made to Officer Danzer. Indeed, Cates

did not believe he had “confessed” to anything, and he planned to use the videotape of

t h e i n t e r r o g

a t i o n i n l i e u o f t e s t i f

y i n g a n d f

o r t h e p u r

p o s e o f c h a l l e n g

i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e

.2 2

That morning, K.K. tes tified that she and Cates had nonconsensual sex “over the entire

p e r i o d ” o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p

, t h o u g h t h e A m e n d e d I

n f o r m a t i o n a l l e g

e d o n l y t w o s p e c i f

i c

i n s t a n c e s o f n o n c o n s e n s u a l s e x w i t h K

. K

. D e f e n s e c o u n s e l p r

o m p t l y o b j e c t e d a n d m o v e d

f o r a m i s t r i a l

, a n a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r s e o f a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e t h i s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

.

S e e C i t i z e n A d v o c a t e s F o r A L i v a b l e M

i s s o u l a v

. M i s s o u l a C i t y C o u n c i l , 2006 MT 47,

¶ 35, 331 Mont. 269, 130 P.3d 1259 (“It is well established that this Court will not review

an is s u e t h a t w a s n o t r a i s e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. ” ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m

i t t e d ) ) ;

State v. Gomez , 2007 MT 111, ¶ 21, 337 Mont. 219, 158 P.3d 442 (“The rule is well

established that this Court will not address an issue raised for the first time on appeal .”).

Later, Cates argued that K.K.’s testimony that she had been told by the prosecutor to tell

“the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” was also grounds for a mistrial.

¶ 4 4 Meanwhile, during the lunch recess, the prosecution reached the conclu sion that

certain evidence it intende d t o i n t r o d u c e a t t r i a l ( C a t e s ’ a l l e g

e d c o n f e s s i o n ) w a s n o t

a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r S

t a t e v

. M c K e e

, 2 0 0 6 M T 5

, 3 3 0 M o n t

. 2 4 9

, 1 2 7 P

. 3 d 4 4 5

, a c a s e

d e c i d e d b y t h i s C o u r t 1 1 m o n t h s e a r l i e r

. T h i s p u t t h e S t a t e i n a p r e d i c a m e n t b e c a u s e o n e

of the prosecutors had mentioned this evidence to the jury in his opening statement.

Moreover, the prosecution had assumed it could use Cates’ “confession” and, thus, had

n o t s e n t S

. C

. ’ s r a p e k i t a n d t h e u s e d c o n d o m r e c o v e r e d f r o m K

. K

. ’ s r e s i d e n c e t o t h e S t a t e

C r i m e L a b

. T h e p r o s e c u t o r s a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t C a

t e s h a d n o t m o v

e d t o s u p p r e s s h i s

s t a t e m e n t s t o D a n z e r

. N e v e r t h e l e s s

, b e l i e v i n g t h e y c o u l d n o t i n t r o d u c e t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s

,

t h e p r o s e c u t o r s s o u g

h t t o a b o r t t h e t r i a l a n d s t a r t o v

e r

.2 3

¶ 4 5 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c i d e d t h a t C a t e s h a d n o t p r e s e n t e d p r o p e r g r o u n d s f o r a

m i s t r i a l a n d a c c o r d i n g

l y r e f u s e d t o g r a n t h i s m o t i o n s

. H o w e v e r

, t h e c o u r

t d e c i d e d t h a

t i t

w a s n e c e s s a r y n o n e t h e l e s s “ t o s t o p a t r i a l w h i c h w a s i n a p o s i t i o n w

h e r e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f

a n a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n h a d b e e n r e

p e a t e d l y m a d e k

n o w n t o t h e j u r y

, y e t t

h e e v i d e n c e

a b o u t t h a t c o n f e s s i o n w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t t o McKee .” Although Cates had not

objected to the prosecution’s references to his alleged confession or contended that his

statemen ts to Danzer were inadmissible, the court nevertheless felt that the “particular

circumstances surrounding the numerous references to confession and the inadmissibility

o f t h a t c o n f

e s s i o n c r e a t e d a l e g

a l p i v o t p o i n t ” w

h i c h r e q u i r e d t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l

.

T h e c o u r t t

h u s

, s u a s p o n t e

, d e c l a r e d a m i s t r i a l f o r t h e r e a s o n s a r g

u e d b y t h e p r o s e c u

t o r s

.

¶ 4 6 As an aside, I note the Court’s contentions that Cates had two mistrial motions “on

the table” at the time the District Court decided to declare a mistral sua spo nte, Opinion,

¶ 39, and that Cates’ counsel could have “withdrawn their previous motions” for a

mistrial once the District Court made it clear that it was granting a mistrial sua sponte,

Opinion, ¶ 3 6

. T h i s

, t h e C o u r t s t a t e s

, i s “ the critical factor” in t he Court’s disposition of

t h i s m a t t e r

. O p i n i o n

, ¶ 3 9

. Y e t

, d u r i n g t h e i n

- c h a m b e r s c o n f e r e n c e

, t h e t r i a l j u d g

e

e x p r e s s e d t h e v

i e w t h a t C a t e s h a

d n o t p r e s e n

t e d p r o p e r g

r o u n d s f o r a m i s t r i a l a n d

, t

h u s

,

that he would not grant a mistrial on the g rounds argue d by Cates. Cates’ m otions,

therefore, were no longer “on the table.” Indeed, at the hearing on Cates’ motion to

dismiss, the District Court observed t h a t “ t h e r e w a s n ’ t s o m e s o r t o f m i s t r i a l m o t i o n b y

t h e d e f e n s e h a n g

i n g o u t t h e r e t

h a t I g r a n t e d

. . . . I t

h i n k t h a t i f

- - i f a n y

t h i n g

, i t w a s t h e

C o u r t t h a t b a s i c a l l y d e c l a r e d a m i s t r i a l b a s e d o n w h a t w a s b e f

o r e i t

, n o t b e c a

u s e o f t h e2 4

defense issues regarding testimony that morning or other things

. ” In other words, there

were no lingering defense motions t o be “withdrawn.”

¶ 4 7 So, just prior to the court’s sua sponte decision to terminate the trial, Cates stood

i n t h e f o l l o w i n g p o s t u r e

. H e h a d p r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e a l t

h e i s s u e o f w

h e t h e r K

. K

. ’ s

a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r t e s t i m o n y r e q u i r e d a m i s t r i a l

. H e n o w c o u l d p r

o c e e d w i t h t h e t r i a l

—

one to which the State had come ill

- prepared and in which the prosecution (in C a t e s ’

v i e w ) h a d m a d e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o t h e j u r y d u r i n g i t s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t

. H e c o u l d

p u t t h e S t a t e t o i t s p r o o f

, k n o w i n g t h e r e w e r e s e r i o u s d e f e c t s i n t he prosecution’s case.

He could hold the State accountable should it fail to fulfill the promises it had made to

the jury. And he could use to his benefit the State’s failure to secure critical forensic

evidence. Or, a lternatively, he could consent to a mistrial on the court’s own motion,

forgo taking advantage of the defects in the S t a t e ’ s c a s e

, a n d t h e r e b y s u b

j e c t h i m s e l f t o

r e p r o s e c u t i o n i n a s e c o n d t r i a l ( a t w h i c h t i m e t h e S t a

t e

, p r e s u m a b l y

, w o u l d n o t r e l y o n h i s

a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n b u t i n s t e a d w o u l d be prepared to offer the forensic evidence).

¶ 4 8 N o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s

, l e t a l o n e a f f i r m a t i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e s

, t h a t C a t e s

s e l e c t e d t h e l a

t t e r o p t i o n

. I

n d e e d

, t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t h e c o n s e n t e d t o t h e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f

h i s t r i a l b y t h e c o u r t s u a s p o n t e w i t h t h e r e s u l t t

h a t t h e S t a t e c o u l d r e p r

o s e c u t e h i m a f

t e r

h a v i n g b u t t r e s s e d i t s e v i d e n c e a n d r e p a i r e d t h e d e f e c t s i n i t s c a s e i s u t t e r l y a b s u r d

. T h is

Court essentially attributes irrational decision

- making to Cates and his attorneys.

¶ 4 9 It is important to recal l that the right under Article II, Section 25 not to “be again

p u t i n j e o p a r

d y f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e p r e v i o u s l y t r i e d i n a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n ” i s a f u n d a m e n t a l

r i g h t

. See State v. Tapson

, 2 0 0 1 M T 2 9 2

, ¶ 1 5

, 3 0 7 M o n t

. 4 2 8

, 4 1 P

. 3 d 3 0 5

. M o r e o v e r

,2 5

it is well

- set tled that courts “should not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental

r i g h t s

. ” B a r k

e r v

. W i n g o

, 4 0 7 U

. S

. 5 1 4

, 5 2 5

- 2 6

, 9 2 S

. C t

. 2 1 8 2

, 2 1 8 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ( i n t e r n a l

q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m

i t t e d ) ; see also Tapson , ¶ 2 5 ( “ T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t e n g a g e i n

p r e s u m p t i o n s o f w a i v

e r [ o f o n e ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ]

. ” ) ; S t a t e v

. W a l k e r

, 2 0 0 7 M T 3 4

,

¶ 1 4

, 336 Mont. 56, 153 P.3d 614 (“We refuse to presume that a defendant waived a

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t

. ” )

. W a i v

e r i s “ t h e v

o l u n t a r y a b a n d o n m e n t o f a k

n o w n r i g h t

. ” State v.

McCar thy

, 2 0 0 4 M T 3 1 2

, ¶ 3 2

, 3 2 4 M o n t

. 1

, 1 0 1 P

. 3 d 2 8 8

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, b e f o r e a

d e f e n d a n t c a n w a i v

e a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t

, s u c h w a i v e r

, t o b e r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e c o u r t s

,

m u s t b e i n f o r m e d a n d i n t e l l i g

e n t

, f o r t h e r e c a n b e n o w a i v

e r b y o n e w

h o d o e s n o t k

n o w

h i s r i g h t s o r w h a t h e i s w a i v i n g

. McCarthy

, ¶ 3 2 ; Tapson , ¶ 26.

¶ 5 0 In this connection, I agree with Justice Leaphart that, given the fundamental nature

o f t h e r i g h t n o t t o “ b e a g

a i n p u t i n j e o p a r d y f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e p r e v i o u s l y t r i e d

, ” a

d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t b e d e e m e d t o h a v e w a i v e d t h e r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e termination of

his trial absent a specific, on

- the

- record waiver by the d e f e n d a n t h i m s e l f

. D i s s e n t

, ¶ 6 4

.

I n d e e d

, i t i s w e l l

- e s t a b l i s h e d i n o u r r i g h t

- o f

- p r e s e n c e c a s e s t h a t “ i f a d e f e n d a n t c h o o s e s t o

w a i v e h i s r i g

h t t o b e p r e s e n t a t a c r i t i c a l s t a g e o f t h e t r i a l

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t m u s t o b t a i n a

n

o n

- the

- record personal waiver by the defendant acknowledging that the defendant

v o l u n t a r i l y

, i n t e l l i g

e n t l y

, a n d k

n o w i n g l y w a i v e s t h a t r i g

h t

. ” S t a t e v

. M a t t , 2008 MT 444,

¶ 2 4

, 3 4 7 M o n t

. 5 3 0

, 1 9 9 P

. 3 d 2 4 4 ( c i t i n g McCarthy

, ¶ 3 2

, Tapson

, ¶ 2 8

, S t a t e v

. B i r d

,

2 0 0 2 M T 2

, ¶ 3 8

, 3 0 8 M o n t

. 7 5

, 4 3 P

. 3 d 2 6 6

, State v. Roedel

, 2 0 0 7 M T 2 9 1

, ¶ 5 9

, 3 3 9

M o n t

. 4 8 9

, 1 7 1 P

. 3 d 6 9 4

, a n d State v. Aceto

, 2 0 0 4 M T 2 4 7

, ¶ ¶ 4 5

- 4 6

, 3 2 3 M o n t

. 2 4

, 1 0 0

P

. 3 d 6 2 9 )

. T h e r i g

h t n o t t o b e s u

b j e c t e d t o d o u b l e j e o p a r

d y i s n o l e s s c o m

p e l l i n g o r2 6

f u n d a m e n t a l t h a

n t h e r i g h t t o b e p r e s e n t a t a c r i t i c a l s t a g e o f t h e t r i a l

. T h u s

, t h i s s t a n d a r d

f o r o b t a i n i n g a w a i v e r s h o u l d a p p l y w i t h e q u a l f o r c e i n t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y c o n

t e x t

.

H e r e

, C a t e s n e v

e r m a d e a n o n

- t h e

- r e c o r d p e r s o n a l w a i v e r o f h i s r i g

h t n o t t o b e a g

a i n p u t

i n j e o p a r d y f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e p r e v i o u s l y t r i e d . Accordingly, he cannot be deemed to

have waived that right.

¶ 5 1 The Court acknowledges these concerns are “ v a l i d

. ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 3 9

. Y e t

, d e s p i t e

t h e c o m p l e t e a b s e n c e o f a n o n

- t

h e

- r e c o r d personal waiver by Cates, the Court divines that

he in fact waive d his constitutional right against reprosecution by way of his attorneys’

nebulous comments and their supposed “affirmative conduct.” With one exception,

however, all of the conduct the Court recites is anything but “affirmative

. ” The Court

states that Cates ’ counsel did not withdraw their previous motions. Opinion, ¶ 36.

However, as explained above, there wer e no previous motions to withdraw; and

regardless, failing to withdraw previous motions is not “affirmative” conduct. The Court

also states that Cates did not voice an objection to the mistrial . Opinion, ¶ 36. B ut,

again, failing to act is not “affirmat i v e ” c o n d u c t

. C f

. S t a t e v

. F e n t o n , 506 P.2d 665, 667

(Ariz. App. 2d Dist. 1973) (“[M]ere silence or failure to object to the jury’s discharge is

n o t s u c h c o n s e n t a s w i l l c o n s t i t u t e w a i v e r o f a f o r m e r j e o p a r d y p l e a

. ” ) ; C a r r i l l o v

.

S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 52 Cal. R

ptr. 3d 614, 623 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2006) (“A defendant is

under no duty to object in order to claim the protection against double jeopardy and his

silence in the face of an ensuing discharge cannot be deemed a waiver.”). The Court

points out that Oaas “ affirmatively offered” that he had nothing to say . Opinion, ¶ 36.

H o w e v e r

, I f a i l t o u n d e r s t a n d h o w “ a f

f i r m a t i v e l y o f f e r i n g ” n o t

h i n g t o s a y c o n s t i t u t e s2 7

“affirmative conduct” amounting to a waiver. As noted by the Court in ¶ 34, the notions

of “tacit con sent” and “constructive consent” have been rightly criticized. The Court also

points out that Beck thanked the prosecutors for coming forward. Opinion, ¶ 36. First, I

cannot accept the proposition that civility to opposing counsel constitutes a waiver.

Second, Beck’s comments do not show that Cates made an informed and intelligent

decision to waive a constitutional right.

¶ 5 2 Lastly, the Court places great emphasis on the fact that Cates ’ counsel put forth

two separate mistrial motions before the District C ourt declared a mistrial. O p i n i o n

, ¶ 3 6

.

A l t h o u g h t h e s e m o t i o n s d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e o n

- t h e

- r e c o r

d p e r s o n a

l waivers by Cates

himself, the Court states that this conduct demonstrates that he was “clearly willing to

give up his ‘valued right to have his trial completed by [the] particular tribunal’ which

was sworn and i m

p a n e l e d i n t h i s c a s e

. ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 3 6 ( b r a c k e t s i n O p i n i o n )

. Y e t

, e v e n i f

h e w a s w i l l i n g t o d o s o a t t h e o u t s e t o f t

h e c o l l o q u y w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t

, t h i s d o e s n o t

m e a n h e w a s w i l l i n g t o d o s o f o r r e a s o n s h e n e i t

h e r r e q u e s t e d n o r w a n t e d

. M o r e o v e r

,

circumstances changed during the course of the colloquy, and the Court fails to

acknowledge all of the considerations at play for Cates during this period.

¶ 5 3 C a t e s h a d d e c i d e d n o t t o f i l e a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s h i s s t a t e m e n t s o b t a i n e d i n

v i o l a t i o n o f M

c K e e , electing instead to use the interrogation videotape for his defense.

H e d i d

, h o w e v

e r

, d e c i d e t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r K

. K

. ’ s a l l e g

e d l y i m p r o p e r

t e s t i m o n y n e c e s s i t a t e d a m i s t r i a l

. C e r t a i n l y

, h i s d e c i s i o n t o d o s o w a s a c a l c u l a t e d r i s k

.

O n o n e h a n d

, t h e c o u r t m i g h t g r a n t h i s m o t i o n

, i n w

h i c h c a s e h e c o u l d b e r e t r i e d

. B u t o n

t h e o t h e r h a

n d

, t h e c o u r t m

i g h t d e n y h i s m o t i o n

, i n w h i c h c a s e h e w o u l d h a v

e p r e s e r v e d2 8

a n i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l a n d c o u l d r e s u m e h i s e f f o r t s t o o b t a i n a

n a c q u i t t a l

. T h i s l a t t e r

o u t c o m e r e f

l e c t s t h e p o s i t i o n i n w

h i c h C a t e s s t o o d just p r i o r t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s s u a

s p o n t e t e r m

i n a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l

. I

t i s u t t e r l y i m

p l a u s i b l e t h a t i n m a k i n g h i s m i s t r i a l

m o t i o n s

, C a t e s a c c e p t e d t h e r i s k t h a t t

h e c o u r t w o u l d d e

n y t h o s e m o t i o n s ( l e a v

i n g him

with a legitimate issue for appeal) but then, sua sponte, terminate the trial because the

prosecution, entirely of its own accord, had created what the court believed was a “trial

time bomb”

— a cir cumstance which , again, Cates intended to use to his advantage.

¶ 5 4 “ T h e i m

p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

, f

o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

, i s t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t r e t a i n p r i m a r y c o n t r o l o v e r t h e c o u r s e t o b e f

o l l o w e d i n t

h e e v e n t o f

[ p r e j u d i c i a l j u d i c i a l o r p rosecutorial] error.” United States v. Dinitz , 424 U.S. 600, 609,

96 S. Ct. 1075, 108 0 (1976). The considerations which bear on the decision to proceed

w i t h t h e t r i a l o r b e g

i n t h e p r o c e s s a n e w “ a r e p e c u l i a r l y w i t h i n t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e

d e f e n d a n t

, n o t t

h e j u d g e

, a n d t h e l a t t e r m

u s t a v o i d d e p r i v i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t o f h i s

constitutionally protected freedom of choice in the name of a paternalistic concern for his

w e l f a r e

. ” C a r r i l l o

, 5 2 C a l

. R p t r

. 3 d a t 6 2 3 ( i n t e r

n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m

i t t e d )

. H e r e

, t

h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, a f

t e r e x p l i c i t l y r e f

u s i n g t o g

r a n t a mistrial on the grounds argued by

defense counsel , took matters into its o w n h a n d s a n d t e r m

i n a t e d C a t e s ’ t r i a l o n g

r o u n d s

he neither requested nor wanted. Cates did not consent to this action, 1 a n d h e d i d n o t

w a i v e h i s r i g

h t t o o b j e c t t o i t

.

1 I n d e e d

, i n d e n y i n g C a t e s ’ p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o n d o u b l e j e o p a r d y

g r o u n d s

, t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o b s e r v

e d t h a t “ t h e r e w a s n o d e f

e n s e c o n s e n t f

o r t h e m i s t r i a l

a c t u a l l y d e c l a r e d

. ”2 9

¶ 5 5 T h e C o u r t s u g g e s t s t h a t w h e n a d e f e n d a n t i n d i c a t e s h e i s g i v i n g u p h i s r i g h t t o

h a v e h i s t r i a l p r o c e e d b e f

o r e t h e f i r s t j u r y

, i t i s a r e n u n c i a t i o n o f t h a t r i g h t f o r a l l

p u r p o s e s

, u n l e s s a n d u

n t i l h e i n d i c a t e s t o t

h e c o u r t that he is “now changing course and

w a n t s t o h a v

e t h e o r i g

i n a l t r i b u n a l d e t e r m

i n e h i s g u i l t

. ” S e e O p i n i o n

, ¶

¶ 3 9

- 4 0 ( c i t i n g

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. R a z m i l o v i c

, 5 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 ( 2 d C i r

. 2 0 0 7 ) )

. A s J u s t i c e L e a p h a r t e x

p l a i n s

b e l o w

, h o w e v

e r

, a d e f e n d a n t w h o m a k e s a m o t i o n f

o r a m i s t r i a l r e t a i n s t h e r i g h t t o

c o n t r o l t h e c o u r s e t o b e f

o l l o w e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o o t h e r errors in the trial. Dissent,

¶ ¶ 6 8

- 6 9 ; s e e a l

s o D i n i t z , 424 U.S. at 609, 96 S. Ct. at 108 0 . Moreover, the Court cites

no authority for the proposition that a d e f e n d a n t ’ s m i s t r i a l m o t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a w a i v e r f o r

a l l p u r p o s e s w h i c h m u s t b e a f f i r m a t i v e l y r e s c i n d e d l e s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e r e a f

t e r a b o r t t h e

t r i a l

, s u a s p o n t e

, o n a n y g r o u n d o f i t s c h o o s i n g

.

¶ 5 6 R a z

m i l o v i c is readily distinguishable on its facts and doe s n o t s u p p o r t t h e C o u r t ’ s

n e w r u l e

. I t i s n o t e w o r t

h y

, n o n e t h e l e s s

, t h a

t t h e R a z m i l

o v i c court held that retrial was

barred because the defendant did not “deliberately forego[ ] ” h i s r i g h t t o h a v e h i s g u i l t

d e t e r m i n e d b y h i s o r i g i n a l t r i b u n a l

, R a z m i l o v i c , 5 07 F.3d at 142, a showing that certainly

does not appear on the record with respect to Cates. In any event, I cannot agree with the

notion that after the District Court conveyed its unwillingness to grant defense counsel’s

motions for a mistrial, Cates wa s then required to inform the court that he was “changing

course” so as to preclude the court from deciding, sua sponte, to terminate his trial on

grounds he neither requested nor wanted.

¶ 5 7 As a final matter, I note that the District Court’s action is not su stainable under the

“ m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y ” d o c t r i n e e i t h e r

. U n d e r t h a t s t a n d a r d

, “ a t r i a l c a n b e d i s c o n t i n u e d3 0

when particular circumstances manifest a necessity for so doing, and when failure to

d i s c o n t i n u e w o u l d d e f

e a t t h e e n d s o f j u s t i c e

. ” S t a t e v

. C a r n e y , 219 Mont. 412, 417, 714

P.2d 532, 535 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard contemplates that

“ ‘there are degrees of necessity and we require a “high degree” before concluding that a

mistrial is appropriate.’ ” C a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n t

. a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d a t 5 3 5 ( q u o t i n g A r i

z o n a v

.

W a s h i n g t o n

, 4 3 4 U

. S

. 4 9 7

, 5 0 6

, 9 8 S

. C t

. 8 2 4

, 8 3 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) )

. A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

e x p l a i n e d i n W

a s h i n g t o n :

T h e q u e s t i o n w

h e t h e r t h a t “ h i g h d e g r e e ” h a s b e e n r e a c h e d i s

a n s w e r e d m o r e e a s i l y i n s o m e k i n d s o f c a s e s t h a n i n o t h e r s

. A t o n e

e x t r e m e a r e c a s e s i n w

h i c h a p r o s e c u

t o r r e q u e s t s a m

i s t r i a l i n o r d e r t o buttress weaknesses in his evidence. Although there was a time when

English judges served the Stuart monarchs by exercising a power to

discharge a jury whenever it appeared that the Crown’s evidence would be

insufficient to convict, the prohibition against double jeopardy as it evolved

i n t h i s c o u n t r y w a s p l a i n l y i n t e n d e d t o c o n d e m n t h i s “ a b h o r r e n

t ”

p r a c t i c e

. . . .

. . .

T h u s

, t h e s t r i c t e s t s c r

u t i n y i s a p p r o p r i a t e w

h e n t h e b a s i s f o r t h e m i s t r i a l i s

t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c r i t i c a l p r o s e c u t i o n e v i d e n c e

, o r w

h e n t h e r e i s r e a s o n to believe that the prosecutor is using the superior resources of the State to

harass or to achieve a tactical advantage over the accus ed.

A t t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e i s t h e m i s t r i a l p r e m i s e d u p o n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s

b e l i e f t h a t t h e j u r y i s u n a b l e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t

, l o n g c o n s i d e r e d t

h e c l a s s i c

b a s i s f o r a p r o p e r m

i s t r i a l

.

W a s h i n g t o n , 434 U.S. at 507

- 09, 98 S. Ct. at 831

- 32 (footnotes omitted). Since a mistrial

declared without the defendant’s request or consent implicates his “valued right to have

h i s t r i a l c o m

p l e t e d b y a p a r t i c u l a r t r i b u n a l

, ” D i n i t z , 424 U.S. at 606, 96 S. Ct. at 1079

( i n t e r n a l q u o t a

t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

, a c o u r t “ m u s t e x e r c i s e t h e p o w e r t o d i s c h a r g e a j u r y3 1

w i t h t h e g

r e a t e s t c a u t i o n

, u n d e r u r g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, a n d f

o r p l a i n a n d o b v i o u s c a s e s

, ”

C a r n e y , 219 Mont. at 418, 714 P.2d at 535 (internal quotation marks omitted)

.

¶ 5 8 Here, the State told the jury in its opening statement about evidence which the

S t a t e ’ s o w

n “ e x p e r t ” ( S i p e ) c o n c l u d e d w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e

. P r i o r t o t h i s

, t h e S t a t e f

a i l e d t o

s e c u r e f o r e n s i c e v i d e n c e w

h i c h i t n e e d e d t o p r

o v e i t s c a s e

. I

n s h o r t

, t h e S t a t e c a m e t o

t r i a l u n p r e

p a r e d

. Y e t

, t h e S t a

t e n o w s e e k s t o s u b

j e c t C a t e s t o a s e c o n d t r i a l n o t b e c a u s e

o f a n y e r r o r s c a u s e d b y o r c o m p l a i n e d o f b y C a t e s i n t h e f i r s t t r i a l

, b u t b e c a u s e t

h e

prosecution figured out on the third day of trial, based on an 11

- month

- old case, that it

had committed what it believed to be “revers ible error.”

¶ 5 9 I cannot agree with the State that the prosecutors, in arguing for a mistrial (or

d e c l i n i n g t o o b

j e c t t o o n e ) w e r e n o t “ m a n e u v e r i n g ” t o a c h i e v

e a s e c o n d

, b e t

t e r

o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n v i c t C a t e s

. T h a t i s e x a c t l y w h a t t h e y w e r e t r y i n g t o d o

, h a v i n g f i g u r e d

o u t

, b e l a t e d l y

, t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t u s e t h e s u

p p o s e d “ c o n f

e s s i o n ” t h e y h a d i n t e n d e d t o u s e

i n p r o v i n g t h e i r c a s e

. A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l i c i t l y f o u n d t h a t b o t h

sides w e r e “ m a n e u v

e r i n g l i k e c r a z y ” a n d t h a t e a c h p a r t y “ w a n t e d t h e m i s t r i a l o n u s t o b e

o n t h e o t h e r

, a

n d b o t h w a n t e d t

h e o n u s o n t h e o t h e r f

o r t a c t i c a l r e a s o n s

, d o u b l e j e o p a r d y

being the quickly obvious one .”

¶ 6 0 T h e s t r i c t e s t s c r

u t i n y i s a p p r o p r i a t e w

h e n a m i s t r i a l i s b a s e d o n t h e u

n a v a i l a b i l i t y

o f c r i t i c a l p r o s e c u t i o n e v

i d e n c e

. C

a r n e y

, 2 1 9 M o n t

. a t 4 1 7

, 7 1 4 P

. 2 d a t 5 3 5 ; W a s h i n g t o n

,

4 3 4 U

. S

. a

t 5 0 8

, 9 8 S

. C t

. a t 8 3 2

. I f C a t e s i s t o r e t a i n p r i m a r y c o n t r o l o v e r t h e c o u r s e t o

b e f o l l o w e d u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e n t h e S t a t e c a n n o t u n i l a t e r a l l y o b t a i n a m

i s t r i a l

d u e t o i t s o w

n e r r o r i n p r e s e n t i n g i t s c a s e

. N o m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y e x i s t e d f

o r t h e D i s t r i c t3 2

Court’s s ua sponte termination of Cates’ trial. Rather, the court, on its own motion, gave

the State a second bite of the apple because the prosecution had created a “tr ial

- time

bomb” by coming to trial unprepared to try its case.

¶ 6 1 F o r t h e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s

, a n d b a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s

, I w o u l d h o l d t h a t

C a t e s d i d n o t c o n s e n

t t o

, o r w a i v

e h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o

, the termination of his trial. Nor

was there a manifest necessity for terminating it. I would reverse the District Court’s

Order on Motion to Dismiss/Double Jeopardy and remand this case wi th instructions to

grant Cates’ motion to dismiss.

¶ 6 2 I d i s s e n t

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

J u s t i c e W

. W i l l i a m L e a p h a r t

, d i s s e n t i n g

.

¶ 6 3 I d i s s e n t

. T h e r i g h t n o t t o “ b e a g

a i n p u t i n j e o p a r d y f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e ” i s a

f u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t u n d e r A

r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 2 5 o f t h e M o n t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n

. C o u r t s

s h o u l d “ n o t p r e s u m e a c q u i e s c e n c e i n t h e l o s s o f f u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t s

. ” B a r k

e r v

. W i n g o

,

4 0 7 U

. S

. 5 1 4

, 5 2 5

- 2 6

, 9 2 S

. C t

. 2 1 8 2

, 2 1 8 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ( c i t i n g O h i o B e l l T e l

. C o

. v

. P u b l i c

U t i l i t i e s C o m m n

. , 3 0 1 U

. S

. 2 9 2

, 3 0 7

, 5 7 S

. C t

. 7 2 4

, 7 3 1 ( 1 9 3 7 ) )

. T h e C o u r t i n t h e

p r e s e n t m a t t e r h a s d o n e j u s t t h a t

. B a s e d u

p o n o n e d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t “ I3 3

h a v e n o t h i n g t o s a y

, Y o u r H o n o r ” a n d t h e o t h e r c o u n s e l ’ s t h a n k i n g t h e S t a t e f

o r c o m i n g

f o r w a r d w i t h i t s c o n c e r n s

, t h i s C o u r t p r e s u m e s t h a t C a t e s w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e

D istrict C o u r t ’ s s u a s p o n t e d e c l a r a t i o n o f a m i s t r i a l

. N o t a b l y

, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n d i c a t i n g

t h a t C a t e s h i m s e l f w a s a s k e d w h e t h e r h e w a n t e d h i s t r i a l d i s c o n t i n u e d f o r t h e r e a s o n s

propounded by the State; that is did he want to waive his fundamental right not to “ b e

again put in jeo p a r d y f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e ? ” I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y i n d i c a t i o n t h a t C a t e s

himself actually consented to the District C o u r t ’ s s u a s p o n t e m i s t r i a l

, t h e C o u r

t p i c k s u p

its divin in g r o d a n d g o e s i n s e a r c h o f a c q u i e s c e n c e u n d e r t h e “ t o t a l i t y o f t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s ” t e s t

. E v

e n a s s u m i n g t h a t s u c h a s u b

j e c t i v e t e s t i s a p p r o p r i a t e

, t h e t o t a l i t y

o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o w s t h a t o n c e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n n o u n c e d t

h a t i t w a s s u a s p o n

t e

d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l

, t h e c o u r t d i d n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n l o o k a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a

n d s a y

,

“ M r

. O a a s

. ” T h e c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k w

h e t h e r c o u

n s e l ( o r m o r e i m

p o r t a n t l y

,

M r

. C a t e s ) o b

j e c t e d t o t h e m

i s t r i a l

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t

h e r e w a s c e r t a i n l y n o i n q u i r y m a d e o f

t h e d e f e n d a n t a s t o w h e t h e r h e w a n t e d t o w

a i v e a n y o b j e c t i o n t o t h e g

r a n t i n g o f a m

i s t r i a l

u p o n g r o u n d s w h i c h w o u l d n o t e v

e n r e m o t e l y s a t i s f

y t h e m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y s t a n d a r d

.

¶ 6 4 I n m y v i e w

, g i v e n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l n a t u r e o f t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

, a

d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t b e d e e m e d t o h a v e w a i v e d h i s o b j e c t i o n t o a m

i s t r i a l a b s e n t a

s p e c i f i c

, o n

- t h e

- r e c o r d w a i v

e r f r o m t h e d e f

e n d a n t h i m s e l f

. S e e S t a t e v

. B i r d

, 2 0 0 2 M T 2

,

¶ 3 8

, 3 0 8 M o n t

. 7 5

, 4 3 P

. 3 d 2 6 6 ( i f a d e f e n d a n t c h o o s e s t o w a i v

e h i s r i g h t t o b e p r e s e n t a

t

a c r i t i c a l s t a g

e o f t h e t r i a l

, t

h e c o u r t m

u s t o b t a i n a n o n

- t h e

- r e c o r d p e r s o n a l w a i v e r o f t h a t

r i g h t )

. T h i s w o u l d o b v

i a t e t h e n e e d t o i n

t e r p r e t t h e s t a

t e m e n t s

, s i l e n c e o r b o d y l a n g u a g e3 4

o f c o u n s e l

. I

n t h e d o u b l e j e o p a r

d y c o n t e x t

, t h e s t a k e s a r e t o o h i g h f o r s u c h s u b

j e c t i v e

“ t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ” i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

.

¶ 6 5 T h e n e e d f

o r a n e x p l i c i t w a i v

e r i s a l l t h e m o r e c o m

p e l l i n g w h e n

, a s h e r e

, t h e b a s i s

f o r t h e m i s t r i a l d o e s n o t e v

e n a p p r o a c h t

h e t h r e s h o l d o f m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y

. T r a d i t i o n a l l y

,

m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y r e q u i r e s a “ h i g h d e g r e e ” o f n e c e s s i t y d u e t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s n o t

a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e s t a t e ( e

. g

. , t h e j u r y i s u n a b l e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t

, U

. S

. v

. W e c h t

, 5 4 1 F

. 3 d

4 9 3 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 8 ) ; a j u r o r i s e x c u s e d d u e t o a l a n g u a g e b a r r i e r

, U

. S

. v

. C a m p b e l l

, 5 4 4

F

. 3 d 5 7 7 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 ) )

. T h e d o c t r i n e o f m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y d o e s n o t a

l l o w a p a r t y t o

t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f i t s o w

n m i s t a k e o r e r r o r i n

, f o r e x a m p l e

, r e f e r e n c i n g i n a d m i s s i b l e

e v i d e n c e

. I f i t d i d

, t h e n t h e s t a t e w o u l d e s s e n t i a l l y b e i n c o m p l e t e c o n t r o l o f w

h e n a n d

w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u l d b e a b o r t e d

. F o r e x a m

p l e

, t h e s t a t e m i g

h t d e t e r m i n e t h a t i t s

w i t n e s s e s w e r e n o t h o l d i n g u p u n d e r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n o r t

h a t t h e j u r o r s w e r e n o t

r e a c t i n g p o s i t i v e l y t o t h e s t a t e ’ s c a s e

. I

n s u c h i n s t a n c e s

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r o r o n e o f h i s

w i t n e s s e s c o u l d m a k e a n “ i n a d v e r t e n t ” r e f

e r e n c e t o a n i n a d m

i s s i b l e c o n f

e s s i o n

. H a v

i n g

d o n e s o

, i t c o u l d t h e n c o n v e n i e n t l y a r g

u e t h a t t h e r e c o r d h a

d b e e n p o i s o n e d ; t h a

t t h e o n l y

r e m e d y w a s a m

i s t r i a l

. T h e s t a t e

, t h r o u g h i t s o w n c o n d u c t

, c o u l d t h e r e b y o b t a i n a n e w

j u r y a n d a c h a n c e t o s h o r e u p i t s e v i d e n c e

. T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y t h e t y p e o f m a n e u v

e r i n g t h a t

t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r

d y C l a u s e i s d e s i g

n e d t o p r o h i b i t

. I

n I l l i n o i s v

. S o m e r v i l l e

, 4 1 0 U

. S

.

4 5 8

, 9 3 S

. C t

. 1 0 6 6 ( 1 9 7 3 )

, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c o g

n i z e d t h a t a m i s t r i a l i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e w h e n t h e r e i s a f

a t a l d e f e c t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. F o r e x a m p l e

,

d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l w

h e n a j u r o r w a s d i s q u a l i f i e d b e c a u s e h e h a d s e r v

e d o n t h e g

r a n d

j u r y

, T h o m p s o n v

. U

. S

. , 1 5 5 U

. S

. 2 7 1

, 1 5 S

. C t

. 7 3 ( 1 8 9 4 )

, o r w h e r e t h e t r i a l j u d g

e3 5

d i r e c t e d t h e c a s e m o v

e d b a c k t o t h e p l e a

d i n g s t a g e b e c a u s e

, a f

t e r j e o p a r d y h a d a t t a c h e d

,

i t w a s d i s c o v

e r e d t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a d n o t p l e a

d e d t o t h e i n d i c t m e n t

, L o v a t o v

. N e w

M e x i c o

, 2 4 2 U

. S

. 1 9 9

, 3 7 S

. C t

. 1 0 7 ( 1 9 1 6 )

. W h i l e t h e C o u r t r e c o g

n i z e d t h a t m a n i f

e s t

n e c e s s i t y e x i s t s w

h e n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s i n a n o

- w i n p o s t u r e b e c a u s e o f a l e g

a l d e f e c t t h a t

w o u l d p r o v

i d e r e l i e f f

r o m c o n v i c t i o n

, t h i s i s n o t i n e v i t a b l y s o

. W a y

n e L a F a v e e t a l

. ,

Criminal Procedur e V o l

. 6 § 2 5

. 2 ( d ) 6 1 8 ( 3 d e d

. W e s t 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

S u p r e m e C o u r t i n Somerville c a u t i o n e d t h a

t

, “ t h e d e c l a r a

t i o n o f a m

i s t r i a l o n t

h e b a s i s o f

a r u l e o r a d e f

e c t i v e p r o c e d u r e t h a t w o u l d l e n d i t s e l f t o p r o s e c u t o r i a l m a n i p u l a t i o n w o u l d

involve an entirely different question

. . . . ”

¶ 6 6 T h e c o n c e r

n w i t h p r o s e c u

t o r i a l m a n i p u l a

t i o n c a m e i n t o p l a y i n D o w n u m v

. U

. S

. ,

3 7 2 U

. S

. 7 3 4

, 8 3 S

. C t

. 1 0 3 3 ( 1 9 6 3 )

, w h e r e t h e C o u r t h e l d t

h a t t h e r e w a s n o m a n i f

e s t

n e c e s s i t y w

h e n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n

, k

n o w i n g t h a t a w i t n e s s h a d n o t b e e n f o u n d

, p r o c e e d e d

w i t h j u r y s e l e c t i o n a n d t

h e n

, w h e n t h e w i t n e s s f

a i l e d t o a p p e a r

, m o v

e d f o r a m i s t r i a l d u e

t o l a c k o f a c r

u c i a l w i t n e s s

. A l t h o u g

h t h e p r o s e c u t o r i n D o w

n u m h a d n o t m a n i p u l a t e d t h e

m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l i n o r d e r t o s a v

e a c a s e w

h e r e h e m i s

j u d g e d t h e s t r e n g

t h o f t h e s t a t e ’ s

e v i d e n c e

, “ t h e m

i s t r i a l w a s s o u g

h t t o s a v e a c a s e t h a t a p p e a r e d t o b e h e a d e d t o w a r d a n

a c q u i t t a l b e c a u s e o f a n e v

e n t t h e p r o s e c u

t o r c o u l d h a v

e a n t i c i p a t e d

. L a F a v

e

, C r i m i n a l

P r o c e d u r e a t 6 1 8

. T h e S o m e r v i l l e m a j o r i t y d i s t i n g

u i s h e d D o w

n u m n o t i n g t h a t t h e

m i s t r i a l t h e r e h a d “ o p e r a t e d a s a p o s t

- j e o p a r d y c o n t i n

u a n c e t o a l l o w t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a n

o p p o r t u n i t y t o s t r e n g

t h e n i t s c a s e

. ” S o m e r v i l l e

, 4 1 0 U

. S

. a t 4 6 9

, 9 3 S

. C t

. a t 1 0 7 3

. A s i n

D o w n u m

, t h e p r e s e n

t c a s e i n v

o l v e s a s i t u a t i o n w

h i c h t h e p r o s e c u

t o r c o u l d h a v

e a n d

s h o u l d h a v

e a n t i c i p a t e d

. I

n l i g h t o f o u r d e c i s i o n i n S t

a t e v

. M c K e e

, 2 0 0 6 M T 5

, 3 3 03 6

M o n t

. 2 4 9

, 1 2 7 P

. 3 d 4 4 5

, i n J a n u a r y o f 2 0 0 6

, s o m e e l e v

e n m o n t h s p r i o r t o t h e C a t e s t r i a l

,

t h e S t a t e s h o u l d h a v

e a n t i c i p a t e d t

h a t t h e s t a

t e m e n t f r o m C a t e s a f

t e r h e r e q u e s t e d t o

s p e a k w i t h h i s p a r e n t s w a s c l e a r l y i n a d m i s s i b l e

. D e s p i t e t h i s p r e c e d e n t

, t h e S t a t e f o r g e d

a h e a d a n d r e f e r e n c e d C a t e s ’ s a d m

i s s i o n s i n i t s o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t

. T h e S t a t e s h o u l d n o t

b e a l l o w e d t o b o o t s t r a p i t s e l f i n t o m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y b y r e f

e r e n c e s t o c l e a r l y i n a d m

i s s i b l e

e v i d e n c e

. A s s e t f

o r t h a b o v e

, s u c h a r

u l e i s p a t e n

t l y s u b j e c t t o m a n i p u l a t i o n

.

¶ 6 7 A l t h o u g

h t h e C o u r t c a r e f

u l l y r e l i e s o n a c q u i e s c e n c e r a t h e r t h a n m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y

,

I w o u l d c o n c l u d e t

h a t w h e r e

, a s h e r e

, t

h e e l e m e n t o f m a n i f

e s t n e c e s s i t y i s s o c o m

p l e t e l y

l a c k i n g

, t h e a c q u i e s c e n c e / c o n s e n t p r o n g m u s t b e a l l t h e m o r e c o m

p e l l i n g ; t h a t i s

, c o n s e n t

m u s t b e e x p l i c i t

, o n

- t h e

- r e c o r d

, a n d f r o m t h e d e f

e n d a n t h i m s e l f

. V a g u e s t a t e m e n t s f

r o m

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d o n o t s u f

f i c e

.

¶ 6 8 I d o n o t a g

r e e t h a t C a

t e s

, i n e f f e c t

, c o n s e n t e d t o t

h e c o u r t ’ s d e c l a r a

t i o n o f a

m i s t r i a l g i v

e n t h a t h e p r e v

i o u s l y m a d e t w o m o t i o n s f o r m i s t r i a l o f h i s o w

n

. A s t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t n o t e d i n U

. S

. v

. D i n i t z

, 4 2 4 U

. S

. 6 0 0

, 9 6 S

. C t

. 1 0 7 5

( 1 9 7 6 )

, “ [ t ] h e i m

p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

, f

o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

, i s

t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t r e t a i n s p r i m a r y c o n t r o l o v e r t h e c o u r s e t o b e f

o l l o w e d i n t h e e v

e n t o f

s u c h e r r o r

. ” U

n d e r o u r C o u r t ’ s a p p r

o a c h

, t h e d e f

e n d a n t

, h a v

i n g m a d e a m o t i o n o f h i s

o w n h a s l o s t t h e e l e m e n t o f c o n t r o l i n t h a t h e i s t h e r e b y d e e m e d t o h a v e a g r e e d t h a t t

h e

p r o c e e d i n g s c a n b e a b o r t e d f o r a n y r e a s o n

, e v

e n a r e a s o n n o t r a i s e d i n h i s m o t i o n

, o r

m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y

, e v

e n a r e a s o n w

h i c h d o e s n o t r e m o t e l y s u g g e s t m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y

.

¶ 6 9 A s t h e C o u r t n o t e d i n D i n i t z

, t h e e l e m e n t o f c o n t r o l i s “ e r r o r ” s p e c i f i c ( “ t h e c o u r s e

t o b e f o l l o w e d i n t h e e v

e n t o f s u c h e r r

o r ” )

. ( E m

p h a s i s a d d e d

. ) T h

u s m o v i n g f

o r a3 7

m i s t r i a l o n t

h e b a s i s o f o n e a l l e g

e d e r r o r d o e s n o t a m o u n t t o c o n s e n

t t o a m i s t r i a l o n a

n

entirely separate error

, p a r t i c u l a r l y a n e r r o r w h i c h i s e n t i r e l y o f t h e S t a t e ’ s o w n m a k i n g

.

A s t h e p r e s e n t c a s e g r a p h i c a l l y i l l u s t r a t e s

, u n d e r t h a t s c e n a r i o

, i t i s t h e S t a t e t h a t i s i n

c o n t r o l

.

¶ 7 0 T h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s t h e c l a s s i c s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e e x c e p t i o n ( t a c i t c o n s e n t )

s w a l l o w s t h e r

u l e o f n o r e

- t r i a l a b s e n

t m a n i f e s t n e c e s s i t y

.

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T