Hubbard v. State, 395 Md. 73

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in declaring a mistrial over the defendants' objections based on manifest necessity. The mistrial resulted from a conflict between a suppressed identification of one co-defendant and the State's proposed use of the witness's testimony against the other co-defendant in a joint trial. Because excluding the witness's testimony was a reasonable alternative, the mistrial was not manifestly necessary and retrial was barred by double jeopardy principles.

Holdings

1. A mistrial declared over a defendant's objection is permissible only when the prosecutor establishes a high degree of necessity and the trial court determines that no reasonable alternative can cure the problem. Because exclusion of Rogers's testimony was a reasonable alternative, the mistrial was not manifestly necessary and retrial was barred.
2. The State may not create an evidentiary conflict by choosing to proceed jointly and then rely on that conflict as manifest necessity for a mistrial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether, after jeopardy attached and the defendants objected to the mistrial, the trial court correctly determined that manifest necessity required declaring a mistrial.
2. Whether the availability of excluding Sabrina Rogers's testimony against Hubbard constituted a reasonable alternative that barred retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded