State v. Bedolla

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of Luis Bedolla’s plea in bar, which asserted that retrial after a defense-requested mistrial would violate double jeopardy. The court held that retrial was not barred because Bedolla did not claim, and the record did not establish, that the State intended to provoke his mistrial motion. The court affirmed the district court’s order.

Holdings

1. An order overruling a plea in bar is a final, appealable order when the plea presents a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim affecting a substantial right.
2. A plea in bar may be used to raise a double jeopardy challenge to the State's right to retry a defendant following a mistrial.
3. When a defendant moves for and obtains a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause generally does not bar retrial unless the conduct giving rise to the mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into requesting it.
4. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Nebraska Constitution provides no greater protection than the federal Constitution, and the court declined to expand the Oregon v. Kennedy exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an order denying a plea in bar asserting double jeopardy following a defendant-requested mistrial is a final, appealable order.
2. Whether double jeopardy bars retrial when the defendant moved for and obtained a mistrial, but the defendant does not claim that the prosecution intended to provoke the mistrial.
3. Whether the court should expand the Oregon v. Kennedy exception to include prosecutorial conduct that allegedly caused the need for a mistrial but was not intended to provoke the defendant to request one.

Disposition

affirmed