 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rowlands12/11/2000
Appeal From Charleston County Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
The magistrate's court dismissed a driving under the influence charge against Michelle A. Rowlands on the basis of double jeopardy. The circuit court affirmed. The State appeals, arguing Rowland's prosecution is not barred by double jeopardy and the circuit court erred in affirming the magistrate's exclusion of evidence that Rowlands refused to take a blood test. We affirm.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
February 9, 1997, Rowlands was arrested and charged with driving under the influence . The State's case against Rowlands came before the magistrate's court October 29, 1998.
Following the court's consideration of pretrial motions, both parties advised the court that they were ready to proceed and the jury reentered the courtroom. The court then instructed both parties to verify that all witnesses were sequestered. At that point, the State discovered the absence of a material witness and informed the court that it had a matter to take up outside the presence of the jury. The court stated it would hear the motion after swearing the jury. Neither party objected.
The court swore the jury and asked them to return to the jury room. The State then moved for a continuance on the ground that a material witness under subpoena was not present. Because the jury had been sworn, the court denied the motion for a continuance but granted the State's alternate motion for a mistrial.
The case was rescheduled for February 11, 1999. Prior to trial, Rowlands moved to dismiss the case arguing the prosecution was barred by double jeopardy. After considering the parties' arguments and reviewing the applicable law, the magistrate granted the motion. The State appealed to the circuit court.
The circuit court affirmed, finding the State should have prevented the jury from being sworn and the absence of a State witness did not constitute a "manifest necessity" for a new trial. The State appeals.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the South Carolina Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all citizens from being twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty. A defendant, may not therefore, be prosecuted for the same offense after an acquittal, a conviction, or an improvidently granted mistrial. Generally, jeopardy attaches when a jury is sworn and impaneled, unless prior to reaching a verdict, the jury is discharged with the defendant's consent or upon some ground of legal necessity. In the present case, the magistrate's court granted the mistrial based upon the unavailability of a government witness.
Although the decision is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court, a mistrial is proper only where it is dictated by "manifest necessity" or "the public's interest in a fair trial designated to end in just judgment." Whether a mistrial is "manifestly necessary" is a fact specific inquiry. "It is not a mechanically applied standard, but rather is a determination that must be made in the context of the specific difficulty facing the trial judge." A trial judge's decision to grant or deny a mistrial will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.
The State argues Rowland's February 1999 prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy because the magistrate found that a mistrial was manifestly necessary. We disagree.
In making its ruling, the magistrate's court relied heavily upon Downum v. United States. In Downum, a majority of the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant's second trial was bar
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|