Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealhearingtrialmotiondouble jeopardyprosecutor
defendanttrialmotiondouble jeopardydocketprosecutor

Related Cases

People v. Horn, 279 Mich.App. 31, 755 N.W.2d 212
View Case »
Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463
View Case »
People v. Duckett, 162 Cal.App.3d 1115, 209 Cal.Rptr. 96
View Case »
Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895
View Case »
Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 112 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1326
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Commonwealth v. Devereaux, Not Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2019 WL 856618

Facts

Jewel Devereaux was found guilty of simple possession of a controlled substance and marijuana in a Municipal Court trial. Following a mistrial due to the introduction of a suppressed statement by the prosecutor, Devereaux filed a petition to bar prosecution, claiming it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, leading to Devereaux's appeal.

According to the docket entries for the Municipal Court case, on May 18, 2016[,] the Honorable Karen Simmons denied [Deveraux's] Motion to Suppress with respect to the stop and search, but granted it with respect to [Deveraux's] statements.

Issue

Did the trial court doubly err by not allowing defense counsel to call witnesses to demonstrate that it would violate double jeopardy to permit the prosecution to go forward following a mistrial granted because of the prosecution's introduction of a suppressed statement and then by denying the motion to bar prosecution?

Did the [trial] court doubly err by not allowing defense counsel to call witnesses to demonstrate that it would violate double jeopardy to permit the prosecution to go forward following a mistrial granted because of the prosecution's introduction of a suppressed statement and then by denying the motion to bar prosecution?

Rule

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution protect a defendant from repeated prosecutions for the same offense. Prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial in cases where it is intended to provoke a mistrial or prejudices the defendant's right to a fair trial.

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect a defendant from repeated criminal prosecutions for the same offense.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the prosecutor's actions constituted intentional misconduct that would bar retrial. It concluded that the prosecutor's question to Officer Klock did not specifically concern any suppressed statements and was not intended to provoke a mistrial. The court found that the prosecutor's conduct did not rise to the level of intentional misconduct, and thus, retrial was not barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The facts here support the trial court's determination that the prosecutor did not 'engage in intentional misconduct barring retrial.'

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Devereaux failed to establish that the prosecutor engaged in intentional misconduct that would bar retrial.

We agree with the trial court's conclusion that no part of the ADA's conduct '[rose] to the level of intentional misconduct.' Therefore, no relief is due because Deveraux has failed to establish that the ADA engaged in intentional misconduct.

Who won?

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prevailed because the court found no prosecutorial misconduct that would bar retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The trial court however did not find the conduct of the prosecutor to rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.

You must be