Sua Sponte Mistrial by Trial Court, Over Defense Objection That There was No Manifest Necessity, Results in Dismissal.

Minnesota v. Roeschelein, Minn.Ct.App., 12/29/2009.  The state charged Mr. Roeschelein with two counts of fourth degree driving while impaired; Mr. Roeschelein waived a jury trial.  He also stipulated that:

there was probable cause for appellant’s arrest; “[appellant] was in physical control”; and appellant’s conduct occurred in Kanabec County on or about the date of the charge.

Mr. Roeschelein challenged the statute that permits admission of the breath test results through the officer who administered it, and challenged the admission of a report from the BCI having to do with the operation of the breath-test equipment without the testimony of the preparer of the report.  The state put the cop on who had arrested Mr. Roeschelein and then administered both the implied consent advisory and the breath test.  After that, Mr. Roeschelein moved for a judgment of acquittal, saying that the state had failed to prove that the breath test result was produced within two hours of the time when he was in physical control of the car.  Mr. Roeschelein pointed out, too coyly by half, that he had only stipulated that he was in physical control, not when he was in physical control.

The trial court, un-amused, declared a mistrial and shipped the parties off to another judge for a redo.  Mr. Roeschelein objected to the mistrial, saying that there was no manifest necessity for it.  When everybody showed up in front of the new judge Mr. Roeschelein then moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s sua sponte mistrial declaration, made without a defendant’s consent under an abuse of discretion standard.  State v. Gouleed, 720 N.W.2d 794, 800 (Minn. 2006).  Here, the appellate court decides that because the trial court did not adequately consider less drastic measures, like permitting the state to reopen its case to plug the hole in its evidence, the trial court abused its discretion.  This abuse of discretion also means that the trial court erred in denying Mr. Roeschelein motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.