STATE EX REL. ARMANDO ALCALA
v.
HON. L. A. GRAYSON, ACTING JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a trial judge abused discretion in declaring a mistrial based on alleged perjury by the state's witnesses, finding that jeopardy had attached and the defendant could not be retried without violating double jeopardy protections. The court emphasized that mistrial declarations must be based on absolute necessity and that the mere prospect of an unfavorable verdict does not justify halting a trial.
Jeopardy attached once the jury was empaneled and sworn and testimony had begun. The mistrial was improperly declared because the judge had no absolute necessity to halt the trial; the court was fully capable of functioning and the apparent reason for the mistrial was likelihood of an unfavorable result for the prosecution, not a circumstance falling within the recognized exceptions to the mistrial power.
“In this state the rule has been long established and continuously adhered to that the power to declare a mistrial and discharge the jury should be exercised with great care and caution and should be done only in case of absolute necessity.”
Establishes the strict standard for declaring a mistrial and protects the fundamental right against double jeopardy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelator Alcala was placed on trial in the Criminal Court of Hillsborough County. A jury was empaneled and sworn, and two state witnesses testified. Th…
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 Former Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case of original jurisdiction in prohibition.
Relator Alcala was put upon trial in the Criminal Court .of Hillsborough County; a jury was empaneled and sworn and two witnesses for'the state were called; at that stage of the proceeding the presiding judge .became convinced that the witnesses were committing perjury and that the defendant was responsible for the perjury and for that reason a mistrial was declared over Alcala’s objection.
The question now is whether Alcala was in jeopardy and should not be required to stand trial again. The right to plead former jeopardy was sanctioned by the ancient common law and has long been guaranteed by our constitution. Any attempt to deprive an accused of its benefit should be allowed with extreme caution. In this state the rule has been long established and continuously adhered to that the power to declare a mistrial and discharge the jury should be exercised with great care ahd caution and should be done only in case of absolute necessity. Ellis v. State, 25 Fla. 703, 6 So. 768; Allen v. State, 52 Fla. 1, 41 So. 593; Fails v. State, 60 Fla. 8, 53 So. 612.
As to what is absolute necessity is often a difficult matter to ascertain. In State ex rel. Dato v. Himes, 134 Fla. 675, 184 So. 244, we said that the causes which create the necessity must fall under one of three heads, namely:
“ (1) Where the court is compelled by law to be adjourned before the jury can .agree upon a verdict; (2) where the prisoner by his own misconduct places it out of the power of *437the jury to investigate his ease correctly, thereby obtaining an unfair advantage of the state, or is himself by the visitation of Providence, prevented from being able to attend to his trial; and (3) where there is no possibility for the jury to agree upon and return a verdict.”
Double jeopardy does not depend upon the result, or probable result, of the trial, but rather upon the fact of trial. If the court is legally constituted and has jurisdiction of the offense and the accused and the charge is legally sufficient to predicate a verdict and judgment, jeopardy attaches unless there arises some reason why the court cannot function. In this case there was no Reason why the court might not have proceeded to a verdict. If there were no other witnesses to sustain the .state’s case then it was a .plain case where the prosecution could not make a case. The apparent reason for halting the trial was the likelihood of the case terminating unfavorably to the state. The court was fully capable to function and render a judgment. See Wharton’s Criminal Law, Vol. 1, 12th ed., page 548, Sec. 395; 15 Am. Jur. page 78, Sec. 409; State v. Himes, 153 Fla. 711, 15 So. 613.
The rule nisi is therefore made absolute.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1978)…the power to declare a mistrial and discharge the jury should be exercised with great care and caution and should be done only in cases of absolute necessity. State ex rel. Wilson v. Lewis, 55 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1951); State ex rel. Alcala v. Grayson, 156 Fla. 435, 23 So. 2d 484 (1945); King v. State, 258 So. 2d 21 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Warren, supra; Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). There was no absolute necessity to declare a mistrial and, under the circumstances of the case, the evidence was…
-
Coy Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ion for mistrial, aside from it being made too late, such motion should never be granted in the midst of a criminal trial unless there is an absolute legal necessity to stop the trial and discharge the jury. In State ex rel. Alcala v. Grayson, 1945, 156 Fla. 435, 23 So. 2d 484, the Supreme Court said: “In this state the rule has been long established and continuously adhered to that the power to declare a mistrial and discharge the jury should be exercised with great care and caution and should be done onl…
-
Jackson v. State, 419 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…declare a mistrial and discharge the jury should be exercised with great care and caution and should be done only in cases of absolute necessity. State ex rel. Wilson v. Lewis, 55 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1951); State ex rel. Alcala v. Grayson, 156 Fla. 435, 23 So. 2d 484 (1945); King v. State, 258 So. 2d 21 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Warren, supra; Kelly v. State, 202 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). Next, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal. We do not agree with this contention: The…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allen v. State, 52 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1906)
- State v. Himes, 134 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1938)
- State v. Himes, 153 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1943)
- Fails v. State, 60 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1910)