Opinion ID: 1860429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver and Preservation of Error

Text: In response to Cardine's brief, the Commonwealth argues that the double jeopardy violation was somehow waived or otherwise not preserved for appeal because the Appellants got what they requested (albeit in the form of a mistrial), did not object to the mistrial, and did not raise the issue when the trial court was setting a date for the second trial. Because these arguments are also applicable to Curry, they are addressed as to both Appellants. First, neither Appellant asked for a mistrial. [3] Appellants requested the alternative relief described above: exclusion of the new witness or continuance to another date. A mistrial is not a substitute for a continuance, which the Commonwealth seems to imply, because it excuses the current jury from the case, whereas a continuance postpones the trial but keeps the same jury. Thus, for double jeopardy purposes, only the latter remedy is workable, since only it preserves the valued right to have [a] trial completed by a particular tribunal, which is the right that lies at the foundation of the federal rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn. Crist, 437 U.S. at 36, 98 S.Ct. 2156 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the defense does not have to object to a mistrial. In Radford , retrial of the defendant was barred on double jeopardy grounds even though the defendant did not object to the trial court's declaration of a mistrial. Radford, 212 S.W.3d at 83; see also United States v. Gantley, 172 F.3d 422, 429 (6th Cir.1999) ([A] defendant's failure to object to a mistrial implies consent thereto only if the sum of the surrounding circumstances positively indicates this silence was tantamount to consent. (emphasis added)). In Radford , this Court noted that [a]ccording to the record, the first mention by the trial court of a mistrial was from the bench when the trial court dismissed the jury. Therefore, there is no argument that the Appellant consented to the mistrial because the record does not provide any evidence that a mistrial was even discussed, or moved for by the Commonwealth, before the trial court dismissed the jury. Radford, 212 S.W.3d at 76-77. This Court also noted, Furthermore, RCr 9.22 states that if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice that party. This rule is almost identical to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b), which provides, in part, that if a party does not have an opportunity to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an objection does not later prejudice that party. Therefore, when the very first time there was mention of [a mistrial was] when the court [declared a mistrial,] [i]t was clear ... that the time for argument was over [and the Appellant] simply could not [have] waive[d][his] opportunity to object when [he] was never given such an opportunity. Id. at 77 (quoting United States v. Breeding, 109 F.3d 308, 310 (6th Cir.1997)) (alterations in original). Since the Appellants in this case also failed to object to the trial court's abrupt sua sponte declaration of a mistrial, Radford controls. Therefore, as in Radford , the Appellants in this case did not consent to the trial court's declaration of a mistrial, nor were they required to object. Additionally, it simply does not make sense to require a criminal defendant to object to a mistrial. If the trial judge improperly grants a mistrial, as in this case, such a rule would require the defense attorney to risk forgoing a win for his client if the objection was sustained. Forcing the defense to risk snatching defeat from certain victory is impermissible in light of the adversarial nature of our justice system and the ethical requirements of zealous, competent advocacy. This notion is buttressed by the fact that the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth. KRS 500.070(1); Brock v. Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Ky.1997). It is the Commonwealth whose interests are harmed by an improper, sua sponte mistrial. When the trial court ordered, sua sponte, a mistrial after the jury was sworn under an erroneous finding of manifest necessity, the Commonwealth could have objected to provide the court with a chance to correct its error and to allow the Commonwealth a chance to later prove its case. No such objection was made by the Commonwealth. Third, even though neither Appellant raised the issue of double jeopardy at the time of their retrial, as noted above double jeopardy violations can be addressed as palpable error because the nature of such errors is to create manifest injustice. Presentation of such errors to the trial court, while perhaps preferable, is not required. In Sherley v. Commonwealth, 558 S.W.2d 615, 618 (Ky.1977), overruled on other grounds by Dixon v. Commonwealth, 263 S.W.3d 583 (Ky.2008), this Court heard a double jeopardy claim even though it was not raised at trial. Even though the defendant did not present th[e] issue of double jeopardy or multiple prosecution to the trial court ... [this Court was] persuaded that failure to preserve this issue for appellate review should not result in permitting a double jeopardy conviction to stand. Id. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed: [U]nder our longstanding rule, double jeopardy questions may be reviewed on appeal, even if they were not presented to the trial court. Terry, 253 S.W.3d at 470; Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003); Grundy v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 76, 85 (Ky.2000); Butts v. Commonwealth, 953 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Ky.1997); Gunter v. Commonwealth, 576 S.W.2d 518, 522 (Ky.1978); see also Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975) (double jeopardy claim on appeal not waived by defendant's guilty plea). This Court remain[s] committed... to our procedural holding in Sherley that failure to preserve double jeopardy issues `should not result in permitting a double jeopardy conviction to stand.' Dixon, 263 S.W.3d at 593 n. 50, (quoting Sherley, 558 S.W.2d at 618). Ultimately, because the Appellants did not request or cause the mistrial, their double jeopardy rights remained intact. They requested appropriate relief when they sought exclusion or a continuance. The fact that the trial court sua sponte and unnecessarily declared a mistrial cannot prejudice or extinguish their double jeopardy rights. Thus, the Appellants adequately preserved the issue by their alternative motions for exclusion or a continuance, and they were not required to object to the declaration of a mistrial.