Nathan Brock v. State of Indiana

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Nathan Brock’s retrial after his first trial ended in a mistrial did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Although Brock did not consent to the mistrial, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity based on defense counsel’s repeated prejudicial mischaracterizations during closing argument. The court also adopted a rule requiring a defendant ordinarily to make a timely objection to a mistrial, while finding that Brock lacked a meaningful opportunity to object.

Holdings

1. A defendant ordinarily must make a timely objection when the government moves for a mistrial or when the trial court declares one sua sponte, but failure to object is not consent when the circumstances did not provide a meaningful opportunity to object; in that situation, consent is determined from the totality of the circumstances.
2. Brock's retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the mistrial was justified by manifest necessity.
3. Indiana Code section 9-30-10-17 is a strict-liability offense and does not require the State to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that his driving privileges had been forfeited for life.
4. The State was not required to introduce evidence expressly citing section 9-30-10-16 because the certified driving record was prima facie evidence of the prior conviction and the record's contents established that section 16 was the only possible basis for Brock's lifetime suspension in 1993.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brock consented to the mistrial, thereby permitting retrial despite the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether the mistrial, declared over Brock's objection or without his consent, was justified by manifest necessity.
3. Whether Indiana Code section 9-30-10-17 requires the State to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that his driving privileges had been forfeited for life.
4. Whether the State was required to introduce evidence expressly identifying Brock's prior conviction as one under Indiana Code section 9-30-10-16.

Disposition

affirmed