In this case, the state contends the trial court erred by granting Kwame Hasani Brown’s motion for discharge and acquittal based on double jeopardy. While not specifying its reasons for granting Brown’s plea in bar, the trial court must have found that the state engaged in intentional misconduct at Brown’s first trial. We will assume without deciding that the state engaged in intentional misconduct in this case. However, because there is simply no evidence in the record that the state acted with a specific intent to subvert Brown’s double jeopardy rights by goading or provoking Brown into moving for a mistrial, the trial court erred in granting Brown’s motion for discharge .1 Accordingly, Brown’s retrial is not prohibited, and we reverse the grant of Brown’s motion for discharge and acquittal. The record shows that part of Brown’s defense strategy was to argue that the police repeatedly harassed him prior to his 2003 arrest for the present charges of driving under the influence, failing to maintain lane, and having an open container of alcohol. Joseph Jones testified that he and Brown were stopped three times within a two week period during the summer of 2003, but none of the incidents culminated in a citation or arrest. Reverend John Williams also testified regarding Brown’s recent stops by the police. According to Williams, he recalled Brown being pulled over for something involving music, but agreed that the incident probably happened when Brown was still considered a minor. He further testified, “I’m thinking there was some that had been some years, but there was just a cluster around this time.” Officer Eckoff also testified about Brown’s recent contacts with the police.
Near the end of the trial’s third day, after the defense had rested its case without having called Brown to testify, the state called a series of rebuttal witnesses to the stand. One such witness was Mike Reynolds, the assistant administrator at the Glynn County Police Department. During direct examination, the solicitor asked Reynolds about Brown’s encounters with police. Specifically, the solicitor asked Reynolds about any computer searches he performed on both the vehicle and on Reynolds. The solicitor then asked, “Okay. And what did your search determine” Reynolds responded: “The search determined that on the involvements report the —- Mr. Brown had several involvements with the police department.” The solicitor then asked, “Okay. Did it give dates” Reynolds responded: “We have a person involved incident on September 8, 2001. A citation issued by the Brunswick Police Department for a noise violation —-” At this point, Brown’s attorney objected and moved for a mistrial on the ground that the testimony injected improper character evidence.
