State v. Baker, 453 Md. 32

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether a trial court's declaration of a mistrial over the defendant's objection was supported by manifest necessity. The mistrial followed disclosure that the prosecutor's brother represented a key witness in a related criminal case and that the prosecutor intended to offer the witness immunity. The court held that the trial court failed to establish manifest necessity and that double jeopardy barred retrial.

Holdings

1. A reviewing court may consider the record of a subsequent proceeding on a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy, together with the trial record, when determining whether a mistrial was supported by manifest necessity.
2. The mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity because the record did not demonstrate a high degree of necessity, adequate exploration of reasonable alternatives, and the absence of any reasonable alternative to mistrial.
3. Double-jeopardy principles barred retrial on both the assault charges and the firearm-possession charges.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Special Appeals properly considered the record of the subsequent hearing on Baker's motion to dismiss when reviewing the mistrial declaration.
2. Whether the trial court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial over Baker's objection was supported by manifest necessity.
3. Whether double-jeopardy principles barred retrial after the mistrial.

Disposition

affirmed