Opinion ID: 1344706
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Re-prosecution After Mistrial

Text: Rudolph's third double jeopardy argument is that the protection against double jeopardy was violated when the State was allowed to re-prosecute him following the mistrial. In Trafny we stated, [I]f a defendant seeks a mistrial, he [generally] waives any defense he might otherwise assert based upon double jeopardy, even though the prosecution or the court provoked the error. 799 P.2d at 709 (footnote omitted). However, we also noted that a narrow exception exists where bad faith conduct by a judge or prosecutor is intended to provoke a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict. Id. (footnote omitted). In those circumstances, double jeopardy does bar re-trial. Therefore, the only question we must decide is whether the prosecution or the trial judge intentionally provoked a mistrial for purposes of affording the State another opportunity to convict Rudolph. Rudolph contends that the prosecutor intentionally provoked the mistrial by questioning the victim on redirect examination about statements that she made to an adult probation and parole officer following Rudolph's convictions in the first trial. He asserts that this testimony was both inadmissible and highly prejudicial, causing him to move for a mistrial. However, he fails to mention that he actually opened the door concerning these statements. During cross-examination, he asked the victim whether she remembered making a remark to Bonnie Stitt of Adult Probation and Parole with respect to [the victim's] husband. He then questioned her about the content of that statement. The record therefore shows that Rudolph himself opened the door into the very questioning that he now claims was prejudicial and warranted the mistrial. Furthermore, we note that Rudolph made two prior motions for a mistrial before it was actually declared. He had asserted, in the presence of the jury, that the trial court was biased and could not give him a fair trial. In granting Rudolph's motion for mistrial, the trial court stated, [I]n order for the defendant to have his own satisfaction, regarding a fair trial, ... it is appropriate for the Court to declare a mistrial. The court did not even allude to any misconduct by the prosecutor as a basis for the mistrial. In light of the foregoing, Rudolph cannot demonstrate that the judge or the prosecutor provoked the mistrial, let alone that they did so intentionally. Therefore, double jeopardy did not bar his third trial.