Glover v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, 125 Nev. 691

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada denied Shawn Glover's petition for a writ of prohibition challenging his retrial after the trial court declared a mistrial. The court held that Glover's police statement was inadmissible hearsay when offered by the defense and that defense counsel's repeated references to the excluded statement and violation of court orders created a manifest necessity for mistrial consistent with double jeopardy principles.

Holdings

1. Glover's unsworn, out-of-court police statement was inadmissible hearsay when offered by him because no applicable exception or basis for admission was established.
2. Defense counsel may argue reasonable negative inferences from evidence in the record, but may not argue the existence or contents of inadmissible evidence or place counsel's personal knowledge and belief before the jury.
3. A mistrial caused by improper defense advocacy that creates an unacceptable risk of jury bias constitutes manifest necessity when the trial judge acts responsibly and deliberately rather than irrationally or irresponsibly; retrial is therefore not barred by double jeopardy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Glover's voluntary out-of-court police statement was admissible when offered by the defense or could be used as the basis for a negative inference from the State's failure to introduce it.
2. Whether defense counsel improperly argued facts not in evidence and counsel's personal knowledge by referring to the contents and supposed significance of the excluded videotaped statement.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding manifest necessity for a mistrial after defense counsel repeatedly violated evidentiary and in limine rulings and continued the improper argument after being ordered to stop.
4. Whether retrial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Nevada Constitutions.

Disposition

writ_denied