Nance v. State

The state's vigorous objection to defendant's request to excuse a juror for cause was not the type of intentional prosecutorial misconduct necessary to bar a retrial following the reversal of defendant's original death sentence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Michael W. Nance was convicted of malice murder and a host of other crimes in 1997, and the jury recommended imposition of the death penalty. This Court affirmed appellant’s convictions, but reversed the imposition of the death penalty on the ground that the trial court had erred when it failed to excuse a prospective juror for cause because her views in favor of capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of her duties as a juror. Nance v. State, 272 Ga. 217 6 526 SE2d 560 2000. Because the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the statutory aggravating circumstances existed, this Court concluded its opinion with the statement that “on retrial of the penalty phase, the State may again seek the death penalty. Cit.” Id., at 224. After the trial court entered judgment on the remittitur, appellant filed a motion to bar the State from seeking to retry him or from seeking to impose the death penalty. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant filed this direct appeal,1 contending the trial court’s denial of his motion was error. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

The primary purpose underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is to prohibit the retrial of a criminal defendant where the prosecution has, at the initial trial, produced insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Cits.. The general rule is that the retrial of the defendant is not barred where reversal of the conviction results from trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency. Cits.. . . .The Double Jeopardy Clause stands as a bar to retrial of the defendant . . . where the prosecutor has goaded the defense into making a motion for a mistrial in order for the prosecution to avoid reversal of the conviction because of prosecutorial or judicial error, or to otherwise obtain a more favorable chance for a guilty verdict on retrial. Cits.

Nance v. State

The state's vigorous objection to defendant's request to excuse a juror for cause was not the type of intentional prosecutorial misconduct necessary to bar a retrial following the reversal of defendant's original death sentence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report