People v. Kimble

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to bar govt. re-prosecution of defendant on aggravated criminal sexual abuse charges under circumstances, where: (1) in prior trial on said charges jury told trial court that it was at impasse after three-hour deliberation; (2) without notifying State or defendant, trial court directed bailiff to tell jury to continue deliberating; (3) jury foreman subsequently reported in open court that jury was still at impasse after five hours of deliberation; and (4) trial court denied State’s and defendant’s request to give Prim instruction and sua sponte declared mistrial. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that double jeopardy provisions contained in section 3-4(a)(3) of Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/3-4(a)(3)) barred defendant’s retrial on instant charges, where: (1) there was no manifest necessity for trial court’s sua sponte declaration of mistrial; and (2) trial court’s ex parte communication with jury prejudiced defendant. In its petition for leave to appeal, govt. argued that Appellate Court wrongly found that defendant’s lack of specific objection to trial court’s mistrial at time it was announced did not preclude him from making subsequent double jeopardy claim.