Maryland Court of Appeals Case Summaries: October 23, 2011
The Daily Record (Baltimore) › October 30, 2011
Linked as:
Summary
Criminal Procedure
Double jeopardySee the full content of this document
Extract
Maryland Court of Appeals Case Summaries: October 23, 2011
BOTTOM LINE: Where trial judge was aware of the substance of the defense case, was knowledgeable of defendant's prior convictions and knew she would be unable to assess the defendant's credibility in the absence of an admission by the defendant or other evidence tending to undermine his credibility, retrial of the defendant after a mistrial was declared was barred by the double jeopardy clause.
CASE: Mansfield v. State, No. 53, Sept. Term, 2010 (filed Sept. 30, 2011) (Judges BELL, Harrell, Greene, Adkins & Barbera) (Judges Battaglia & Murphy, dissenting).FACTS: Christopher Mansfield was charged with statutory rape and other offenses relating to alleged sexual assault of a minor some years earlier. Mansfield was tried in a bench trial in circuit court. Before the start of the trial, the Mansfield had been convicted in two separate, unrelated cases of sexual offenses involving young women who were minors under the age of 16 or 17. Those judgments of conviction were being appealed at the time. The trial judge was aware of these convictions and, the prosecutor and...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
