Matter of Guiden v. Jose-Decker

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to prohibit the retrial of a defendant after a mistrial was declared over his objection. The court held that juror misconduct and the resulting prejudice established manifest necessity for the mistrial, so double jeopardy did not bar retrial. The petition was dismissed without costs.

Holdings

1. Retrial was not barred because the trial court's mistrial determination was supported by manifest necessity.
2. Juror No. 5's repeated, willful disobedience of instructions, lack of candor during questioning, and interference with jury independence constituted gross misconduct under CPL 280.10(2).
3. The trial court adequately considered and rejected alternatives to a mistrial, including additional questioning, alternate jurors, additional admonitions, and curative instructions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial over petitioner's objection based on juror misconduct.
2. Whether the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity such that a retrial was not barred by the federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
3. Whether the trial court adequately considered alternatives to a mistrial, including further juror questioning, alternate jurors, and curative instructions.

Disposition

dismissed