Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Jandreau

Supreme Court of Maine

March 9, 2017

STATE OF MAINE
v.
KENNETH A. JANDREAU

          On Briefs: February 10, 2017

          Ezra A.R. Willey, Esq., and N. Laurence Willey, Jr., Esq., Willey Law Offices, Bangor, for appellant Kenneth A. Jandreau

          R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, Tracy Collins, Asst. Dist. Atty., and William Johnson, Stud. Atty., Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine

          Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

          GORMAN, J.

         [¶1] Kenneth A. Jandreau appeals from an order of the trial court (Penobscot County, Anderson, J.) denying his motion to dismiss a criminal complaint against him. The court concluded that the prosecution did not violate Jandreau's rights pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions because, at his first trial, there had been manifest necessity for a mistrial and there had been no prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm the judgment.

         I. BACKGROUND

         [¶2] On May 8, 2013, Jandreau crashed his car into a utility pole in Millinocket. He was charged with operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A) (2016), to which he pleaded not guilty. In May of 2015, the court held a two-day jury trial on the matter.

         [¶3] During the trial, a witness for the State produced a document that had not been disclosed in discovery: an accident reconstruction report made by a State trooper.[1] Jandreau objected to the use of the accident reconstruction report at trial, and the court acceded to Jandreau's objection by restricting the State's use of information from the report. Thereafter, the trooper who created the report testified that information obtained from the car's event data recorder, or "black box, " showed that Jandreau had been traveling at a speed of sixty-four miles per hour a split second before colliding with the utility pole.

         [¶4] After the close of the evidence, the jury deliberated for approximately four hours, excluding time for breaks, instructions, and polling. Three times during its deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court indicating that it was unable to reach a verdict. The court polled the jury twice, asking each juror whether he or she believed that the jury was deadlocked and whether he or she believed that the jury would be able to reach a verdict with further deliberation or instruction. When the court polled the jury after its second note, eleven jurors stated that they believed the jury would not be able to reach a verdict. One juror told the court that the jury might be able to reach a verdict with further deliberation. Based on this report, the court sent the jury back for further deliberation. When the court polled the jury after its third note, however, all twelve jurors reported that they were deadlocked and that they would not be able to reach a verdict. Concluding that the jury was genuinely deadlocked, the court sua sponte declared a mistrial due to manifest necessity.

         [¶5] In September of 2015, Jandreau moved to dismiss the criminal complaint against him, [2] contending-on double jeopardy grounds-that lack of manifest necessity for a mistrial and prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial barred a second prosecution for the same crimes. The court held a hearing on the motion, during which it was revealed that miscommunication between investigating officers from two different law enforcement agencies delayed the transmission of the accident reconstruction report to the prosecutor's office and to Jandreau. At the same hearing, the court also heard evidence that the accident reconstruction report showed that Jandreau had been traveling at a speed of 40.87 miles per hour when he lost control of the car and about twenty-seven miles per hour at impact, rather than the sixty-four miles per hour at impact that the trooper testified to at trial. Finally, the court heard evidence that the trooper's trial testimony had been based on the data reported by the car's black box, but that an intermittent power loss caused that data to be reported out of order. Thus, although the black box data appeared to show that the last speed recorded before impact was sixty-four miles per hour, it was, in fact, twenty-seven miles per hour.

         [¶6] On May 24, 2016, the court denied Jandreau's motion to dismiss, concluding that the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions did not bar a second prosecution because (1) there had been manifest necessity for a mistrial due to a genuinely deadlocked jury and (2) although the missing accident reconstruction report resulted in the presentation of incorrect information about the vehicle's speed to the jury, there had been no prosecutorial misconduct because the State had not withheld the evidence intentionally. Jandreau appealed.[3]

         II. DISCUSSION

         [¶7] Jandreau contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because (1) the jury was not genuinely deadlocked and (2) the prosecutor's failure to turn over evidence in discovery amounted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.