ILNews

Justices: No error in declaring mistrial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court's determination to discharge a jury at a defendant's second trial wasn't an abuse of discretion, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

At issue in Gary Dennis Jackson v. State of Indiana, No. 39S01-0907-CR-309, was whether the jury at Gary Dennis Jackson's second trial for battery should have been dismissed and whether Jackson's conviction at his third trial violated double jeopardy rules. Jackson's first trial ended in a hung jury; the same day the jury was sworn in for his second trial, a newspaper article ran about the trial with an excerpt from a letter Jackson wrote to the prosecutor trying his case. The state requested a mistrial because it believed an admonishment to the jury couldn't overcome the prejudice against the state created by the article. Five jurors admitted to being exposed to the article. The trial court granted the motion for mistrial.

At Jackson's third trial, he was convicted of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, finding the trial court abused its discretion in granting the mistrial and the retrial was barred by double jeopardy.

Citing various United States Supreme Court and Indiana appellate decisions on mistrials, the Supreme Court found the trial court's decision to grant the mistrial and order a new trial wasn't an abuse of discretion. The justices disagreed with Jackson that the trial court had to make explicit findings or give explanations as to why it granted the mistrial. The trial court also wasn't required to admonish the jury or attempt other measures before declaring the mistrial.

"The trial court's decision is bolstered by the fact that the jurors were exposed to the article the same day they were impaneled and the mistrial was declared the next day. This was before any evidence was introduced, and even before opening statements," wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

The justices also affirmed the exclusion of a paramedic's testimony that while he was treating the victim, someone said that the victim fell and hit his head against the wall. The paramedic's account was hearsay and not admissible under any exclusions. The high court also found sufficient evidence to support Jackson's conviction.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT