Opinion ID: 1421838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: double jeopardy; speedy trial

Text: Defendant argues that subjecting him to a third trial placed him in double jeopardy. However, K.S.A. 21-3108 discusses the effect of former prosecutions. Subsection (4)(c) provides, however, that if subsequent proceedings resulted in invalidation, setting aside, reversal or vacating of the conviction, then a prosecution is not barred unless the defendant is adjudged not guilty. In this case the first jury was unable to agree and a mistrial was declared. The second jury convicted the defendant, but that verdict was set aside on the defendant's motion. Clearly, the third trial was not barred under K.S.A. 21-3108 or upon any theory of double jeopardy. Defendant's principal argument under this section of his brief is that he was not afforded a speedy trial under the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3402, which reads: 22-3402. Discharge of persons not brought promptly to trial. (1) If any person charged with a crime and held in jail solely by reason thereof shall not be brought to trial within ninety (90) days after such person's arraignment on the charge, such person shall be entitled to be discharged from further liability to be tried for the crime charged, unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant, or a continuance shall be ordered by the court under subsection (3). .... (4) In the event a mistrial is declared or a conviction is reversed on appeal to the supreme court or court of appeals, the time limitations provided for herein shall commence to run from the date the mistrial is declared or the date the mandate of the supreme court or court of appeals is filed in the district court. The first jury trial, admittedly held within the ninety-day limit established by the statute, ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. Automatically, then, the ninety-day time limit was reset by operation of 22-3402(4). The second trial was held within ninety days of the date the mistrial was declared, and that trial resulted in a verdict of guilty which was set aside and a new trial granted on defendant's motion. Defendant argues that the second jury trial was a nullity, and in support of that argument he cites State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 641-42, 533 P.2d 1229 (1975), where we said: The theory is that when a new trial is granted on the motion of the defendant in a criminal prosecution, the granting of the same places the party accused in the same position as if no trial had been had. (Emphasis supplied.) He argues that when the trial court granted defendant's motion for a new trial (at the end of the second trial), the effect of that order, under Osburn, was to place defendant in the same position as if no (second) trial had been had. Thus, the second trial cannot be considered in determining compliance with the ninety-day statute. And since the third trial did not commence within ninety days of the date on which the (first trial) mistrial was declared, the third trial was out of time and defendant is entitled to be discharged since he was not afforded a speedy trial as required by the statute. K.S.A. 22-3402(4) does not specifically mention the granting of a new trial; the granting of a new trial, however, in this context is tantamount to a declaration of a mistrial. The granting of a new trial has the same effect as the granting of a mistrial by the trial court or the reversal of a conviction and the granting of a new trial on appeal. We hold that the statutory language, In the event a mistrial is declared in K.S.A. 22-3402(4), includes the granting of a motion for a new trial by a trial court. Thus, the State had ninety days from the granting of the new trial, at the end of the second trial, in which to bring the defendant to trial a third time, and it did so. The defendant is therefore not entitled to be discharged under K.S.A. 22-3402. Defendant has not shown that the delay has been prejudicial to him in the presentation of his defense and he does not argue that there has been a constitutional violation of his right to speedy trial. We find no constitutional violation of that right.