IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
R.M., a juvenile, appealed his adjudication of delinquency on double jeopardy grounds after a mistrial was declared during a joint trial with a co-defendant. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the resumption of trial before the same judge without a new beginning did not violate double jeopardy protections.
Double jeopardy was not violated because the trial was continued before the same judge with the stated purpose to "finish" the trial, rather than constituting a completely new beginning or prosecution before a new trier of fact.
[1] Jeopardy attaches in a non-jury trial when the judge begins to hear evidence.
[2] Once jeopardy has attached, the state is prohibited from prosecuting an accused a second time for the same offense.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In a non-jury trial, jeopardy attaches when the judge begins to hear evidence.”
Establishes when jeopardy attaches in bench trials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.M. and D.S. were being tried together for attempted robbery and aggravated battery. During trial, a detective's statement regarding D.S.'s arrest pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice To The Accused cases and more on FLexlaw
[*65] PER CURIAM.
Claiming he was subjected to double jeopardy, R.M. appeals his adjudication of delinquency. We affirm.
R.M. and D.S. were being tried together for attempted robbery and aggravated battery. At trial, when the detective who arrested D.S. was asked where the arrest took place, he replied in effect, that he had learned D.S. was already in custody by another officer for an unrelated charge. D.S.’s counsel moved for mistrial. Mistrial was granted but it was not clear whether the mistrial went to one or both of the juveniles. Minutes later the juveniles appeared before a second judge. Without restating the specific statement for which the mistrial was granted, R.M.’s counsel pointed out to the second judge what had just transpired and his uncertainty as to his client’s status in this scenario. Thereupon the first judge was immediately contacted, at once appeared, and after a brief discussion, stated she would immediately “finish” R.M.’s trial. There was no new beginning as to this litigant, and at the conclusion of the case against R.M., the juvenile was found guilty of both delinquent acts charged.
In a non-jury trial, jeopardy attaches when the judge begins to hear evidence. State v. Sipe, 537 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA1989). Once a defendant has been placed in jeopardy, the state is prohibited by article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution from prosecuting the accused a second time for the same offense. Double jeopardy protection does not bar resumption of the same proceeding after a continuance, as long as no prejudice to the accused results. Sipe, 537 So. 2d at 178. See State ex rel. Futch v. Johnson, 102 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA1958). Double jeopardy exists when the second event involves a completely new beginning, i.e., when the second proceeding takes place before a new trier of fact, whether that be a different judge or jury, or the same judge starting with a clean slate. Webb v. Hutto, 720 F. 2d 375 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1080, 104 S.Ct. 1444, 79 L.Ed.2d 764 (1984). The instant record indicates the trial was continued, with the judge’s stated purpose to “finish” the trial as to R.M. Therefore, we conclude that the juvenile’s right against double jeopardy was not violated.
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gipson v. State, 616 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1993)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Gipson v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla.2d DCA 1992), which relied on Boomer v. State, 596 So. 2d 730 (Fla.2d DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. Art V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve Gipson. Gipson was convicted of numerous drug-related crimes and sentenced to two concurrent guidel…
-
C.A.K. v. State, 661 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…case. If a trial judge continues the proceeding, rather than declaring a mistrial, and arranges for another attorney to represent the juvenile in the remainder of the case, a technical violation of double jeopardy may be avoided. See R.M. v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).…
-
State v. T.D., 837 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…, but we affirm the trial court’s exercise of discretion in dismissing the case. T.D.’s crime was to be tried by the trial judge. And, in the case of a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear evidence. See, e.g., R.M. v. State, 603 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In Bernard v. State, 261 So. 2d 133, 135 (Fla.1972), our supreme court held that a court begins to hear evidence when “the first witness is actually placed on the stand and begins to testify.” Here, no witness ever took the s…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kuntz v. Winters Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 465 U.S. 1080 (U.S. 1984)
- Bolar Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 465 U.S. 1080 (U.S. 1984)
- Webb v. Hutto, 720 F.2d 375 (4th Cir. 1983)
- State ex rel. Futch v. Johnson, 102 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- State v. Sipe, 537 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)