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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 661 (Pierre-Lewis v. Tomei) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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]*662Adjudged 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]*662Adjudged 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 661, 549 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-lewis-v-tomei-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack