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 Petitioner was a co-defendant in a trial alongside another individual. During the trial, the court issued a sua sponte order of mistrial, which the Petitioner objected to. The case proceeded to a second trial, which the Petitioner challenged as constitutionally invalid (para 1).
Procedural History
- State v. Molinar, Ct. App. No. 10,982, November 11, 1989: The Court of Appeals upheld the Petitioner's conviction, with one judge dissenting (para 1).
- State v. Callaway, Ct. App. No. 10,966, November 7, 1989: A related case involving the Petitioner's co-defendant, where the Court of Appeals decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that the trial court's sua sponte order of mistrial rendered the second trial constitutionally invalid (para 1).
- Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was the Petitioner's second trial constitutionally invalid due to the trial court's sua sponte order of mistrial?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to discharge the Petitioner from custody (para 2).
Reasons
Per Curiam: The Court found that the Petitioner's second trial was constitutionally invalid for the same reasons outlined in the related case of State v. Callaway. In that case, the trial court's sua sponte order of mistrial was deemed improper, and the subsequent trial was found to violate constitutional protections. Applying the same reasoning, the Court concluded that the Petitioner's conviction could not stand and ordered his release (paras 1-2).
Baca J., dissenting: Justice Baca dissented but did not provide written reasons in the decision (para 3).