Hall v. Potoker, 49 N.Y.2d 705 (1980)

A retrial is not barred by double jeopardy when a mistrial is declared due to the unforeseeable unavailability of a crucial prosecution witness, provided the trial court properly considered alternatives and the unavailability was not due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Summary

Raymond Hall was indicted for selling controlled substances. During the trial, the key prosecution witness, an undercover officer, was unexpectedly hospitalized due to a severe infection. The prosecutor requested a continuance, but the defense objected, arguing it would prejudice the jury. The trial court, sua sponte, declared a mistrial over the defense’s objection. Hall then sought to prohibit a retrial based on double jeopardy. The New York Court of Appeals held that retrial was permissible because the mistrial was a manifest necessity, stemming from an unforeseeable event and not prosecutorial misconduct, and the trial court had adequately considered alternatives.

Facts

Raymond Hall was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance to an undercover officer. The prosecutor was informed that the officer would be available to testify on Wednesday, April 25, and they agreed to meet on Tuesday, April 24. On April 24, a jury was selected and opening statements were made. The prosecutor then learned that the officer had suffered a cut finger while effecting an arrest during the weekend, and the hand became severely infected, requiring hospitalization. The treating physician testified that the officer would remain in the hospital for at least a week, and would not be able to testify prior to the week of May 7, and stressed the impossibility of exact prediction.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the prosecution’s motion for a continuance but, over defense objections, declared a mistrial sua sponte. Hall then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to restrain his retrial. The Appellate Division dismissed the petition, holding that the mistrial was manifestly necessary and retrial would not violate double jeopardy. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether double jeopardy bars the retrial of a criminal defendant where a mistrial was declared over defense objection due to the unexpected hospitalization of a key prosecution witness.

Holding

No, because the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary due to the unforeseeable unavailability of a crucial prosecution witness, and the trial court properly explored alternatives, and the unavailability was not due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the petition. The court acknowledged the defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal but weighed this against the public’s interest in fair trials. The court reiterated the classic formulation from United States v. Perez that retrial is not barred where there was “a manifest necessity for the mistrial, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.” The decision to abort a criminal trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must explore appropriate alternatives. The court noted that when a mistrial is premised upon the claimed unavailability of crucial prosecution evidence, that claim is subjected to “the strictest scrutiny” because the prosecutor is not entitled to a mistrial merely to gain “‘a more favorable opportunity to convict’”.

The court emphasized that the witness’s unavailability resulted from an unforeseeable contingency, not prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor had no reason to anticipate the hospitalization. Given the defense counsel’s strenuous objection to a continuance, the trial court reasonably concluded that a continuance was not a viable option. The court stated that the trial court acted upon reliable information in declaring a mistrial, and trial courts, when considering the exigencies of a potential mistrial, “cannot be bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable at formal proceedings”. Because the trial court adequately explored the available alternatives and based its decision upon valid considerations, there was no abuse of discretion.