Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earnest L. SCURRY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 933 So. 2d 565
Docket Number: No. 1D05-2051
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earnest L. SCURRY, Appellee.
Judges: THOMAS, J., concurs and PADOVANO, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 933
Pages: 565–567

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Earnest L. SCURRY, Appellee.
No. 1D05-2051.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 17, 2006.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Alan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
KAHN, C.J.
The State appeals an order of dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Because the record will not support a finding of intentional prosecutorial misconduct, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.
"[T]he granting of a motion for a mistrial made by the defense ordinarily does not bar a retrial, even where the error was due to action of the state." State v. Balezos, 765 So.2d 819, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see Fuente v. State, 549 So.2d 652, 657-58 (Fla.1989). A narrow exception exists, however, when the State's misconduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial. See Gibson v. State, 475 So.2d 1346, 1347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (stating that for double jeopardy to attach after a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, court must find that prosecution intended to "goad" defendant to move for mistrial). Only under such a scenario of intentional prosecutorial misconduct, will double-jeopardy attach. See Fuente, 549 So.2d at 658 (" 'Only where the governmental conduct in ques tion is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.' " quoting Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)); see also Rodriguez v. State, 622 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that retrial did not violate double jeopardy because prosecutorial misconduct, although present, was not intentional).
In the instant case, the trial judge instructed both parties not to reference appellee's previous trial. The State communicated this command to its witnesses. Nevertheless, one of the State's witnesses, when asked by defense counsel on cross-examination about her previous testimony in the matter, mentioned the first trial. The exact exchange was as follows:
Q: Detective Morgan, do you recall testifying previously in this matter on July 14, 2003?
A: The previous trial? I don't know what you are talking about.
The witness, obviously confused by counsel's question after she was instructed not to mention the previous trial, innocently committed the very error she was trying to avoid. This falls far short of intentionally goading the defendant into requesting a mistrial. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND this case for further proceedings.
THOMAS, J., concurs and PADOVANO, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with written opinion.