STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JODY L. SCHARICH, 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.
The State appeals the dismissal of a DUI charge against Scharich, who absconded after jury selection, prompting the trial court to declare a sua sponte mistrial. The appellate court reverses the dismissal, holding that a defendant should not benefit from her own misconduct in absconding from trial, and that the trial court properly declared a mistrial under manifest necessity.
The appellate court reversed, holding that although the trial court had other options available, the sua sponte declaration of mistrial was proper under manifest necessity when the defendant voluntarily absconded after jury selection, and such a mistrial does not bar prosecution under double jeopardy. A defendant should not be rewarded for misconduct in absconding from trial.
[1] A trial court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial due to a defendant's voluntary absence after the jury has been sworn does not bar a retrial under double jeopardy pri…
[2] A trial court has discretion to declare a mistrial when a defendant voluntarily absents himself from trial after the jury has been impaneled.
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“Although the initial trial court had other options available, such as a further continuance or a trial in the absence of the defendant, the sua sponte declaration of the mistrial should not deprive the state of a trial under these circumstances.”
Establishes that while the trial court had alternatives, the sua sponte mistrial declaration was proper and should not bar retrial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScharich was charged with DUI. Although she appeared for trial, she absconded after the jury was sworn. The trial court continued the trial for two an…
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 Manifest Necessity For Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The State appeals an order dismissing the charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) against Jody L. Scharich. We reverse.
Although Scharich appeared for the trial of her DUI charge, she absconded after the jury was sworn. The trial court continued the trial for two and one-half hours in order to afford defense counsel an opportunity to find his client. Reconvening the court, the trial judge asked defense counsel if he was ready to proceed. The only answer and comment was: “Well, I guess not. I am, but Ms. Scharich is not here.”
The trial court then, sua sponte, declared a mistrial. One year later, with a new trial, new judge and new defense counsel, Scharich moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the defendant did not request a mistrial at the first trial, a mistrial was not necessary and that the pending charge1 was barred by double jeopardy. The court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.
Although the initial trial court had other options available, such as a further continuance or a trial in the absence of the defendant, the sua sponte declaration of the mistrial should not deprive the state of a trial under these circumstances. In State ex rel. Walker v. Lee, 320 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 845 (Fla.1976), the trial court, sua sponte, declared a mistrial because the defendant voluntarily absented Mmself from the trial after the jury had been impaneled and the prosecution represented to the court that the defendant’s absence would be prejudicial to its efforts to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense. The district court found under such facts, the trial court had properly exercised his discretion in determimng that there was a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial.
We can envision no need to reward Scha-rich for her misconduct of inexplicably leaving her trial and obviously frustrating the State’s ability to establish the requisite identity of her as the perpetrator of the offense of DUI.
The dismissal is vacated and the matter remanded for trial.
VACATED; REVERSED; REMANDED.
THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur
. Subsequent to the declaration of mistrial, the state received proof of three out-of-state prior DUI convictions, and accordingly, increased the misdemeanor DUI charge to a felony DUI charge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jimmie Lee Walker v. Honorable J. Cail LEE, 320 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)