You are here: / / AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR...
, ,

AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one of three counts, determined the superseding indictment which came down after a mistrial on the original indictment was a nullity because the trial judge did not dismiss the original indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment. The issue was not preserved and the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice. Because defendant had been convicted of two counts which were in the original indictment, those convictions were allowed to stand because the original indictment was never dismissed. The Third Department noted that double jeopardy principles do not attach to a mistrial. The conviction on the third count, which was not in the original indictment, was reversed:

… [B]ecause the court did not, upon declaring the mistrial on the original indictment, “dismiss the indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment to the [g]rand [j]ury[,] . . . the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the same accusatory instrument” … ; thus, the superseding indictment is a nullity … . However, reversal of the judgment of conviction is not required given that both indictments contained two identical counts … . * * * This conclusion, however, does not extend to count 1 of the superseding indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree … , which was not charged in the original indictment; therefore, we reverse that conviction. To the extent that defendant raises double jeopardy concerns, as the first trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy principles do not attach … . People v Gentry, 2023 NY Slip Op 03818, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, the judge does not dismiss the indictment or authorize a new indictment, the original indictment remains. Double jeopardy does not attach.

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, a superseding indictment is brought without the trial court’s authorization, the superseding indictment is a nullity and the original indictment remains in effect.

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL THERE WAS NO APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE HEIGHTENED DEFINITION OF IMPAIRMENT IN ANY CONTEXT OTHER THAN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).
THE FELONY WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A PREDICATE FELONY (THIRD DEPT). ​
WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E., A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER, WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT AND AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant’s Non-Work-Related Felony Deemed to Breach Express or Implied Duty Owed to Employer
THE PLEADINGS ALLEGED THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE HOSPITAL’S “AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES” AND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT POINTED TO THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE EMERGENCY ROOM PHYSICIAN’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS (THIRD DEPT).

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

PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER... THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING...