State v. Moore

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a trial court’s sua sponte mistrial order, issued after the prosecution disclosed a newly discovered insurance investigator witness, satisfied the constitutional “manifest necessity” standard. The court held that it did not, because the mistrial resulted from the prosecutor’s lack of preparation, the state had already presented eight witnesses, and the defendant had objected to a mistrial. The court ordered a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The state failed to establish manifest necessity for the trial court to declare a mistrial over defendant's objection. The prosecutor's failure to identify a key witness before trial, together with the substantial testimony already presented and defendant's clear desire to continue with the selected jury, made reprosecution constitutionally barred under Article I, section 12.
2. Mandamus was appropriate because the trial court's mistrial order and denial of defendant's motion to dismiss constituted fundamental legal error and violated a clear legal right to be free from reprosecution.
3. Defendant's objection was unequivocal. His argument that a continuance would not cure the prejudice from admitting the new evidence did not amount to consent to a mistrial or an assertion that he could not proceed if the evidence were admitted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial over defendant's objection satisfied the manifest-necessity standard under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.
2. Whether the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the subsequent indictment constituted fundamental legal error subject to correction by mandamus.
3. Whether defendant's objection to the mistrial was equivocal because he argued that a continuance would not cure the prejudice from admission of the newly disclosed evidence.

Disposition

writ_granted