Legal Opinion

People v. Hicks

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1994No. Docket Nos. 97552, 98753, (Calendar Nos. 6-7)PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.

We are required in each of these consolidated appeals to determine whether the constitutional bar against double jeopardy precludes retrial after a judge has recused herself in the middle of a bench trial and the successor judge has declared a mistrial. Our answer turns on the scope of the manifest-necessity exception to the double jeopardy bar and its application to the particular facts presented. We conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause allows retrial of defendant Hicks, but precludes retrial of defendant Bellew. Accordingly, we would reverse the Court of Appeals decision in People v…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. People v. LettMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. People v. TraceyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. People v. McEwanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. In re Grand Jury InvestigationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
  5. State v. SolomonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2008

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API