Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

377 So. 2d 106

State v. Coffil

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided November 12, 1979

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1979-11-12

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense, except, when on his own motion, a new trial has been granted or judgment has been arrested, or where there has been a mistrial legally ordered under the provisions of Article 775 or ordered with the express consent of the defendant.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Bodley, 634 So. 2d 965 - State v. DeGrate

“A mistrial may be ordered, and in a jury case the jury dismissed when: (1) The defendant consents thereto; (2) The jury is unable to agree upon a verdict; (3) There is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law; (4) The court finds that the defendant does not have the mental capacity to proceed; (5) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or (6) False statements of a juror on voir dire prevent a fair trial. "Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered, and in a jury case the jury dismissed, when prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial, or when authorized by Article 770 or 771. "A mistrial shall be ordered, and in a jury case the jury dismissed, when the state and the defendant jointly move for a mistrial.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Bodley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-11-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2017

4 state decisions

2019791980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MARCUS, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I consider that the mistrial declared in the first trial was legally ordered under La.Code Crim.P. art. 775; therefore, the second trial did not violate the state consti*CXCtution’s proscription against double jeopardy as implemented in La.Code Crim.P. art. 591.1

¶3This was a bench trial. The trial judge recused himself because of his bias regarding a key state witness. The judge stated that he felt it was necessary to declare a mistrial and recuse himself from the case because he “had information concerning this witness which would cause the court to be biased . . which would prohibit the court from rendering a fair and impartial decision.”

¶4A judge may recuse himself, whether a motion for his recusation has been filed by a party or not, in any case in which a ground for recusation exists. La.Code Crim.P. art. 672. The grounds for recusation are set forth in La.Code Crim.P. art. 671. Paragraph (1) under said article provides that in a criminal case a judge shall be recused when he is biased, prejudiced, or personally interested in the cause to such an extent that he would be unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial. I consider the judge’s admitted bias to the extent that he could not render a fair and impartial decision in this bench trial constituted a ground for recusal within the meaning of paragraph (1) of art. 672. Hence, I consider that the trial judge properly recused himself.

¶5Once the judge recused himself, it was physically impossible to proceed with the trial, particularly since the judge was the trier of fact in this instance. La.Code Crim.P. art. 775(5) provides that a mistrial may be ordered when it is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law. La.Code Crim.P. art. 591 provides in pertinent part that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense except where there has been a mistrial legally ordered under the provisions of art. 775. Here, a mistrial was legally ordered under art. 775, an exception to the prohibition against double jeopardy; therefore, defendants were properly retried following the mistrial.

¶6I respectfully dissent.

¶7. La.Code Crim.P. art. 591 provides:

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense, except, when on his own motion, a new trial has been granted or judgment has been arrested, or where there has been a mistrial legally ordered under the provisions of Article 775 or ordered with the express consent of the defendant.
/377/so2d/106 · .json · Public domain