Court Opinion

ID: 9773032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:35:23.229877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.772850
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, concurring. The majority opinion fully states my view in this case. I feel compelled, however, to respond briefly to. the dissenting opinion. Its fallacy is demonstrated by these words taken from the second paragraph: Thus, on the basis of a question Wilson’s counsel should not have asked the State of Arkansas is deprived of the opportunity to try an individual for a serious breach of the criminal laws. It was not the question asked by the defendant’s lawyer that deprived the state of the opportunity. Rather, it was the overreaction of the court to that question. As the majority opinion points out, our cases require that an accused not be subjected to double jeopardy unless the mistrial occurred on the basis of an overruling necessity. The dissenting opinion goes to some length to argue that the question asked by the defense counsel was improper. Even if the cases cited are somewhat supportive of the contention that the question was improper because it was merely cumulative or, on balance, more prejudicial than probative, the point is that the court was hardly confronted with a situation which could not have been handled by a means other than a mistrial.