DeJuan Lamar Kelley v. State of Indiana

Summary

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that DeJuan Kelley’s retrial after a mistrial did not violate procedural double jeopardy because the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity. The court concluded that defense counsel’s improper character-related statements during opening argument violated an order in limine, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an admonishment inadequate. Kelley’s sentencing challenge was deemed moot because he had completed his sentence.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity for the mistrial. Defense counsel caused the need for the mistrial by violating the order in limine and making improper character-based comments about a State witness; the trial court adequately considered an admonishment and other alternatives; and the mistrial occurred shortly after jeopardy attached, minimizing its burden.
2. Kelley's sentencing claims were moot because he had completed the custodial sentence and the court could not grant him effective relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's declaration of a mistrial over Kelley's objection was supported by manifest necessity such that his retrial did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or equivalent Indiana protections.
2. Whether Kelley's challenge to the trial court's sentencing decision remained justiciable after he completed his sentence.

Disposition

affirmed