AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case involves three defendants charged with receiving stolen property valued over $2,500. A delivery truck driver embezzled merchandise from J.C. Penney and delivered it to the defendants' residence. Police arrested the driver and seized stolen merchandise from the defendants' home. The defendants denied knowledge of the stolen property, claiming it was stored there by the driver under false pretenses (paras 2-3, 10).

Procedural History

• District Court, October 1997: The first trial ended in a mistrial due to the prosecution's late disclosure of evidence (paras 9-10).
• District Court, Date N/A: The defendants' motion to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds was denied (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that retrial was barred by double jeopardy due to prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court erred in denying a mistrial based on inadmissible evidence, and the court improperly excluded evidence to impeach a key witness. They also challenged the restitution amount and claimed the trial court's comments on evidence were prejudicial (paras 11, 31, 35, 44, 46).
• State: Contended that the prosecutor's actions did not meet the threshold for barring retrial under double jeopardy, the trial court properly handled evidentiary issues, and the restitution amount was appropriate (paras 10, 24, 50).

Legal Issues

• Was retrial barred by double jeopardy due to prosecutorial misconduct?
• Did the trial court err in denying a mistrial based on the prosecutor's solicitation of inadmissible evidence?
• Did the trial court err in excluding evidence of alleged forgeries by a key witness?
• Did the trial court's comments on the defendants' evidence deprive them of a fair trial?
• Did the trial court err in ordering restitution for the full retail value of the stolen items?

Disposition

• Double jeopardy: Retrial was not barred.
• Mistrial denial: The trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on inadmissible evidence.
• Exclusion of evidence: The trial court properly excluded evidence of alleged forgeries.
• Trial court comments: The issue was not preserved for appeal.
• Restitution: The trial court's order for restitution at full retail value was upheld (paras 20-30, 33-34, 38-43, 44-45, 46-51).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Hartz and Bosson JJ. concurring):

• Double jeopardy: The court applied the three-part test from State v. Breit. The prosecutor's late disclosure of evidence was negligent but not in bad faith or willful disregard of the consequences. The prejudice could have been cured by remedies short of a mistrial, such as a continuance (paras 20-30).
• Mistrial denial: The prosecutor's question about the store's total losses was irrelevant but not prejudicial enough to warrant a mistrial. The trial court's limiting instruction mitigated any potential prejudice (paras 31-34).
• Exclusion of evidence: The trial court properly excluded testimony about alleged forgeries by the key witness as it was collateral and inadmissible under Rule 11-608(B). The defendants' cross-examination of the witness sufficiently addressed credibility issues (paras 35-43).
• Trial court comments: The defendants failed to preserve this issue for appeal by not objecting at trial or arguing fundamental error (paras 44-45).
• Restitution: The court upheld the restitution order, finding the retail value of the stolen merchandise was reasonably foreseeable as a loss resulting from the crime. The trial court acted within its discretion to make the victim whole (paras 46-51).