You are here: / / After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to...
, ,

After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial on Double Jeopardy Grounds Must Be Brought Within Four Months of a Definitive Demonstration of the People’s Intent to Re-Prosecute

The Court of Appeals, over a concurring opinion which disagreed with the majority's grounds, determined that the four-month statute of limitations was not tolled under a “continuing harm” theory and the prohibition action was time-barred.  The trial court had declared a mistrial because, during deliberations, one of the 12 jurors was removed for misconduct.  It was clear shortly after the mistrial that the prosecution was preparing for a second trial. Two years after the mistrial was declared, the defendant brought a prohibition action seeking to prohibit the second trial on Double Jeopardy grounds:

A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings (see CPLR 217 [1]…) and the petition here was filed more than two years after the mistrial was declared. Although a tolling period for continuing harm has been recognized … and would be adopted by our concurring colleague, we reject its application in this situation. Once the People definitively demonstrated their intent to re-prosecute and the court began to calendar the case for eventual trial, Smith was obligated to initiate his Double Jeopardy-based article 78 challenge within the statutorily prescribed time frame. On the facts of this case, that period expired well before prohibition was sought, and therefore, the proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations. Matter of Smith v Brown, 2014 NY Slip OP 07090, CtApp 10-21-14

 

You might also like
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT REPROSECUTION BY A SIMPLIFIED TRAFFIC INFORMATION AFTER THE ORIGINAL IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SUPPORTING DEPOSITION; THE CONTRARY RULE IN THE APPELLATE TERM FOR THE NINTH AND TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (CT APP). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED.
LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP).
THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).
THOSE WHO WORK ON MUNICIPAL VESSELS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PREVAILING WAGE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 220 (CT APP)
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED CLAIMS, DURING SUMMATION, THAT EVERYTHING THE JURY HEARD FROM DEFENDANT WERE “LIES;” MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
RECORDS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A POLICE OFFICER ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE EVEN IF THE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IS REDACTED (CT APP).
Whether Plaintiff “Justifiably Relied” on Alleged Misrepresentations Is Not Generally a Question Which Can Be Resolved in a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line) E... Although the Police Could Have Done More to Make Sure Defendant Was Not Represented...