Court Opinion

ID: 9846602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:44:09.809891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:39.946258
License: Public Domain

Shearing, J.,
dissenting,
with whom Steffen, C. J., concurs:
I would affirm the conviction. Double jeopardy is not implicated when the defendant consents to a mistrial. Melchor-Gloria v. State, 99 Nev. 174, 178, 660 P.2d 109, 111 (1983) (citing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982)). In this case, the defendant clearly consented to a mistrial when his counsel stated, “If he wants a mistrial, I won’t oppose a mistrial but I don’t think I violated any order, I think the defendant is entitled to a defense.” Agreeing to discharge the jury panel and begin the case anew at a later date and in a calmer atmosphere appears to have been a good defense strategy in light of the circumstances in which defense counsel was attempting to present a defense.
The majority’s discussion of manifest necessity and implied consent is inapposite. The district court judge and the prosecution have a right to rely on the express consent of the defendant’s counsel.