MICHAEL LUTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Michael Luther was tried for sexual battery, but mid-trial the court discovered the state had failed to arraign him on an amended information. The court declared a mistrial over Luther's objection and allowed the state to proceed with a new charge. Luther appeals, arguing double jeopardy protection prohibits retrial when the mistrial was caused by the state's procedural error rather than manifest necessity.
The court held that double jeopardy barred a new trial because the mistrial was declared based on the state's procedural failure to ensure proper arraignment, which does not constitute manifest necessity. The state bears a heavy burden in justifying a mistrial over a defendant's objection and must demonstrate manifest necessity, which was not present here.
[1] Retrial after a mistrial declared without the defendant's request violates double jeopardy unless manifest necessity required the mistrial.
[2] A defendant has a valued right to have their trial completed by a particular tribunal.
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“If a defendant does not request a mistrial, retrial will violate double jeopardy unless manifest necessity required the court to declare it.”
Establishes the legal standard for mistrials declared over a defendant's objection under double jeopardy protection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuther was originally charged with sexual battery under Florida Statutes section 794.011(4)(c). During jury trial, the court discovered the state had …
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 Arraignment cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Michael Luther contends that his double jeopardy rights were violated when the lower court declared a mistrial, in the middle of his jury trial, upon discovering that the state had failed to arraign him on a second amended information.1 Luther had originally been charged with sexual battery under section 794.011(4)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). After declaring the mistrial, the court permitted the state to arraign Luther on the new information, which charged that his acts violated section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). He pleaded no contest to the charges, reserving his right to appeal the double jeopardy issue.
We agree that the lower court’s action violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
We reverse and remand with directions to discharge Mr. Luther. If a defendant does not request a mistrial, retrial will violate double jeopardy unless manifest necessity required the court to declare it. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824).
The Florida Supreme Court has noted that a defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal. Thomas-son v. State, 620 So. 2d 1234, 1237 (Fla.1993) (citations omitted).
While this right does not guarantee that a defendant cannot be retried, in the absence of circumstances thwarting the state’s opportunity to present its case, the defendant’s right should control. Id. The state bears a heavy burden in justifying a mistrial over the objection of a defendant; it must demonstrate manifest necessity.
In this case, the court declared the mistrial because of the state’s failure to ensure that Luther was arraigned on the proper information. This does not rise to the level of manifest necessity. Moreover, the trial court did not evaluate and discuss the available alternatives before declaring the mistrial over Luther’s objections. See Thomason, 620 So. 2d at 1238. Accordingly, we hold that double jeopardy barred a new trial. We reverse and remand with directions to discharge Luther. Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur. . When Luther objected and noted that jeopardy had already attached, the trial court stated it was granting the mistrial based on his previously denied, unrelated request for one. The record contradicts this statement. The court declared the mistrial when it discovered the state had not properly arraigned Luther. When it dismissed the jury, the court stated it was doing so because of serious flaws in the information. We accept Mr. Luther’s position that he did not request the mistrial and that it was based on the state's failure to arraign him on the most recent information.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 685 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…State, 429 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State ex rel. Mitchell v. Walker, 294 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). When the state fails to demonstrate manifest necessity created by such circumstances, retrial violates double jeopardy. Luther v. State, 661 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); U.S. Const. Amend. V. In the instant case the defendant, Johnson, denied owning the firearm but admitted being told of its presence and location in the house. Johnson legitimately testified to similar facts concerning ownership…
-
Tulo v. State, 31 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…defendant’s objection was based on manifest necessity. When the trial court does not evaluate and discuss the available alternatives before declaring the mistrial, the State has a very difficult task in a prohibition proceeding. See Luther v. State, 661 So. 2d 906, 907 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In this case, for example, no one can know whether another assistant state attorney could have been prepared to try the remainder of this case if the trial had been continued until Monday, January 11, 2010. We cannot know wh…
Authorities Cited
- The United States v. Josef Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (U.S. 1824)
- Thomason v. State, 620 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1993)