Opinion ID: 1903773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: McDOWELL'S SECOND TRIAL WAS BARRED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

Text: ¶ 25. McDowell cites Carter v. State, 402 So.2d 817 (Miss.1981), for the proposition that when the Defendant was put into a position to move for a Mistrial by the prosecution or even the Court, then the Defendant should not be barred to raise the double jeopardy complaint. A more careful reading of Carter reveals the following rule: In order to elevate an order granting a mistrial in a criminal case at the request of the defendant to one which could form the basis of a claim of double jeopardy, it must be shown not only that there was error, which is the common predicate to all such orders, but that such error was committed by the prosecution or by the court for the purpose of forcing the defendant to move for the mistrial. Carter, 402 So.2d at 821 (emphasis added). In other words, [w]ithout proof of judicial error prejudicing the defendant, or `bad faith prosecutorial misconduct,' double jeopardy does not arise. Jenkins v. State, 759 So.2d 1229, 1234 (Miss.2000)(quoting United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 482, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971)(plurality)). ¶ 26. The mistrial in McDowell's first trial was declared after Karl Aderer testified in the presence of the jury that he showed Lessner a photo lineup and said: We believe that the person who sold you the narcotics is one of these pictures. At this point, there was confusion as to whether the statement had actually been made and whether Lessner had previously identified McDowell from the video prior to looking at the photo lineup. Eventually, after the trial court stated that it was unsure of how to cure the error, McDowell moved for a mistrial, and the court granted the motion. However, the trial court made it clear, and McDowell agreed, that there was no sign of prosecutorial misconduct in the testimony which led to the mistrial, and McDowell offers this Court no legitimate basis for concluding that the prosecution exhibited bad faith. In light of that fact, we perceive no basis for holding that double jeopardy applies. This issue is without merit.