Opinion ID: 865153
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Re-Indictment

Text: ¶12. Duncan received two mistrials based on hung jury’s as to the charge of capital murder that was based on Brady’s murder during the armed robbery. The State re-indicted Duncan under two counts, murder and armed robbery, arising from the same facts and circumstances. Prior to the third trial, the State made an entry of nolle prosequi as to the original charge which the trial court granted, dismissing the original indictment for capital murder. At trial, Duncan objected claiming that the re-indictment amounted to double jeopardy and violated his right to a speedy trial. The trial court overruled the objection. ¶13. “In regard to any double jeopardy claim, this Court has held that re-indictment for the same offense after an order of nolle prosequi does not bar prosecution.” Caston v. State, 823 5 So. 2d 473, 504 (Miss. 2002); see State v. Shumpert, 723 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Miss. 1998) (citing Beckwith v. State, 615 So. 2d 1134, 1147 (Miss. 1992)). In Beckwith, the “Court has held that following a mistrial declared because of a hung jury, a nolle prosequi entered at the request of the State did not terminate the original jeopardy, and the State was not barred thereafter from seeking the re-indictment of and re-prosecuting the defendant from the same offense.” Beckwith, 615 So. 2d at 1147 (citing Smith v. State, 158 Miss. 355, 359, 128 So. 891, 892 (1930)). ¶14. In Smith, the Court stated: The appellant and his wife filed a motion to quash the indictment, setting up that, prior to the finding of the indictment, the appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of Case on an indictment against him alone; that the jury reported to the court that they were unable to agree on a verdict, and were discharged; that thereupon the district attorney entered a nol pros over the protest of the appellant, and a few minutes thereafter the grand jury returned into court the indictment on which the trial here was had. This motion was overruled. At the close of the evidence the court refused a request of the appellant for a directed verdict of not guilty.