Pierre-Lewis v. Tomei

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierre-Lewis v. Tomei

157 A.D.2d 661, 549 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 235

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 8, 1990·Published

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondent from further prosecuting the petitioner under Kings County indictment No. 8343/88 on the ground of double jeopardy.

[662] Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements, and the provision of the order to show cause of this court, dated November 16, 1989, staying the respondent from further prosecuting the petitioner under Kings County indictment No. 8343/88, is vacated forthwith.

Unlike the situation in which a criminal trial has resulted in a judgment of acquittal, retrial of an indictment is not automatically barred where the merits of the charges against the defendant have not been finally resolved (Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 249). Where, as here, a mistrial was ordered at the request of the petitioner and there is no evidence of bad faith or an intention by the prosecutor to provoke a mistrial motion, retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy protections (People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383, 388; People v Presley, 136 AD2d 949; Matter of Owen v Harrigan, 131 AD2d 20, 23). Accordingly, the instant petition is denied. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondent from further prosecuting the petitioner under Kings County indictment No. 8343/88 on the ground of double jeopardy.

[662] Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements, and the provision of the order to show cause of this court, dated November 16, 1989, staying the respondent from further prosecuting the petitioner under Kings County indictment No. 8343/88, is vacated forthwith.

Unlike the situation in which a criminal trial has resulted in a judgment of acquittal, retrial of an indictment is not automatically barred where the merits of the charges against the defendant have not been finally resolved (Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 249). Where, as here, a mistrial was ordered at the request of the petitioner and there is no evidence of bad faith or an intention by the prosecutor to provoke a mistrial motion, retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy protections (People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383, 388; People v Presley, 136 AD2d 949; Matter of Owen v Harrigan, 131 AD2d 20, 23). Accordingly, the instant petition is denied. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Pierre-Lewis v. Tomei, 157 A.D.2d 661, 549 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

157 A.D.2d 661 (Pierre-Lewis v. Tomei) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related