State v. Pearcy
This text of 521 N.W.2d 854 (State v. Pearcy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Vernon Ralph Pearcy for further review be, and the same is, denied. However, we note that we do not necessarily agree with the court of appeals’ interpretation of United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989). It is unnecessary to grant review to address that issue because we agree with the court of appeals’ conclusion, on the merits, that the mistrial in this case was justified by “manifest necessity” and .that reprosecution of petitioner following the mistrial was not barred by the double jeopardy clause.
BY THE COURT:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
521 N.W.2d 854, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 798, 1994 WL 543592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pearcy-minn-1994.