STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. JIMMIE LEE WALKER, RELATOR,
v.
HONORABLE J. CAIL LEE, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION, RESPONDENT
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.
In this prohibition proceeding, the Florida District Court of Appeal upheld a trial judge's decision to declare a mistrial in a drug abuse case after the defendant voluntarily absented himself from trial, finding that the defendant's own misconduct created manifest necessity for the mistrial and did not violate double jeopardy protections.
The court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in declaring a mistrial, as the defendant's own misconduct (voluntary absence) created manifest necessity for the mistrial. The defendant's double jeopardy claim fails because the mistrial was properly declared.
[1] A mistrial may be declared over a defendant's objection when the defendant's voluntary absence and resulting prejudice to the prosecution's ability to establish identific…
[2] A court's power to discharge a sworn jury before a verdict is limited to situations of manifest, urgent, or absolute necessity.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The power of the court to discharge a jury who have been sworn in chief before a verdict should be exercised only in case of a manifest, urgent, or absolute necessity.”
Establishes the legal standard for declaring a mistrial after jury is sworn
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelator (Walker) was charged with a drug abuse violation. At trial, after the jury was impaneled and sworn, the defendant voluntarily absented himself…
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 Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Chief Judge.
Relator filed suggestion for writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from proceeding with the announced trial of relator for a charged violation of the drug abuse laws. We issued a rule to show cause, respondent filed an answer and brief and relator filed his reply brief. The cause is now ready for final disposition, the court having dispensed with oral argument pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), F.A.R. Relator alleged double jeopardy in that theretofore he had been brought to trial on the same offense and after the jury had been impanelled and sworn respondent had declared a mistrial over relator’s objection. The mistrial had been granted by the court on its own motion when it was made known to the court that the relator was voluntarily absent from the trial and the prosecution represented to the court that the absence of the relator would be prejudicial to its efforts to establish identification of relator as the perpetrator of the offense.
The power of the court to discharge a jury who have been sworn in chief before a verdict should be exercised only in case of a manifest, urgent, or absolute necessity. Allen v. State, 1906, 52 Fla. 1, 41 So. 593; State ex rel. Anderberg v. Strawn, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 213. In the last cited case we discussed in some depth the subject of mistrials in criminal cases and therein noted that among the several causes which create a recognized necessity to declare a mistrial is the situation where the prisoner by his own misconduct places it out of the power of the jury to investigate his case correctly, thereby obtaining an unfair advantage of the State. Other courts in discussing the subject have also recognized that some unfair or wrongful tactic, action or conduct on the part of the defendant by which a substantial interest of the State is unfairly frustrated or embarrassed is a valid reason for declaring a mistrial. See: State ex rel. Mitchell v. Walker, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 124, at 127.
We have no difficulty in concluding that under the facts of this case the respondent properly exercised his discretion in determining that there was a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial over relator’s objections where relator by his own misconduct prejudiced the State in the presentation of its case.
The writ is denied and the suggestion is dismissed.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Scharich, 706 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ourt 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…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. State, 52 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1906)
- State ex rel. Roney J. Mitchell v. Honorable David Seth Walker, 294 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jon Anderberg v. Honorable David U. Strawn, 307 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)