Opinion ID: 2007705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mistrial over Appellant's Objection Manifest Necessity

Text: In 1963, Patterson and her husband each took polygraph examinations regarding Rita's death. Apparently, the results were that neither harbored feelings of guilt over Rita's death. Prior to trial, Patterson moved to introduce those results into evidence. Her motion was denied, and the State's motion in limine was granted prohibiting any mention at trial of the polygraph examination or its results. Nonetheless, Patterson's first trial ended early in a mistrial when a State's witness inadvertently referred to Patterson's polygraph examination. Patterson informed the court she did not want a mistrial, and the State indicated it would neither seek nor object to a declaration of mistrial. Patterson claims the court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial. Therefore, she claims, the discharge operated as an acquittal and her second trial violated her right not to be twice placed in jeopardy. The prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar subsequent proceedings where the trial court exercises sound discretion in declaring a mistrial over a defendant's objection. The court has the authority to declare a mistrial where there exists manifest necessity for doing so. White v. State (1984), Ind., 460 N.E.2d 132. Here, the judge demonstrated a careful and correct assessment of the situation before him: This is an unusual case gentlemen from the standpoint that it is not the defendant asking for a mistrial. The question that I must answer is whether or not an admonishment to the jury to disregard that remark would be sufficient under the circumstances and frankly gentlemen, I do not know whether or not the jury would draw an inference from that last statement and if they were to draw an inference I have no idea whether it would be prejudicial to the defendant or the State of Indiana. The question then becomes on of the inherent power of the Court to determine whether or not the mentioning of the polygraph examination, the voluntary taking of a polygraph by defendant is such that it prevents a fair trial and causes prejudicial harm to this trial at this point. Is it that prejudicial? That's the issue. I have researched the cases and I think the law is clear, that a Court, whether a defendant agrees or disagrees, whether the State agrees or disagrees, the Court does have the inherent authority to control the proceedings to the extent that, if in the Court's opinion, a prejudicial matter has been injected into the trial, the court then may at that point, take whatever action necessary to cure the defect, if that's possible or if its not possible to cure the defect, then in that event to grant a mistrial... . When justice requires that a particular trial be discontinued is a question that should be decided by persons conversant with factors relevant to the determination ... the law has invested courts ... with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act for the ends of public justice that would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject and it is impossible to define all the circumstances which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution under urgent circumstances and for very plain and obvious causes and ... The Court should be extremely careful how they interfere ... But after all, they have the right to order the discharge and the security which the public have for the ... sound ... exercise of this discretion rests in this as in other cases upon the responsibility of judges under their oaths of office... . Under all circumstances in this case, and based upon the violation of the motion in limine... committed by a witness ... it is the opinion of the Court that prejudical error has occurred and it is not, we are not able to remedy that error by a simple admonishment to the jury. Therefore the court will grant a mistrial in this cause. Here, a state's witness referred to appellant's polygraph examination. We have already noted that such testimony is generally inadmissible at trial, a rule which serves to protect both the individual defendant and the ends of justice in general. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the testimony was a product of overreaching or deliberate harpooning by the prosecutor, who would not have wanted testimony about the test results to be interjected. It was an inadvertent, unexpected reference to a fact already ruled inadmissible by the trial court preliminary to trial. Once interjected, it was the court's duty to carefully appraise its consequences. It is clear the trial court proceeded cautiously and with due regard for Patterson's rights. Patterson argues the court should have polled the jury prior to its ruling; however, she has not provided any authority in support of that proposition. The effect of the witness' mistake was, as the court stated, difficult to assess. Although a trial judge should use his authority to grant a mistrial only in the gravest of circumstances and with great care, we scrutinize the decision with deference. White, supra, 460 N.E.2d 132. The decision the trial judge made here was reached with considerable care and we conclude that it was within the range of his discretion. Patterson's second trial was not barred. Because of the exclusion of two competent defense witnesses, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.