Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

MATTER OF COHEN v. HANOPHY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Dec 12, 1994

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Where a mistrial is declared without the consent of, or over the objection of the defendant, the principles of double jeopardy will bar a retrial for the same offense unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial (see, e.g., Matter of Enright v Seidlecki, 59 N.Y.2d 195, 200; People v Michael, 48 N.Y.2d 1, 9). In the instant case, the Trial Judge properly declared a mistrial on the ground of manifest necessity when it appeared possible that he might be called to testify as to whether or not a prosecution witness made a deal with the People in exchange for his cooperation. Moreover, we do not find that the actions of the People rise to the level of misconduct required to bar a retrial under the same indictment. Accordingly, the proceeding must be dismissed. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.