Court of Appeals of New York
In the Matter of Eric Smith v. Brown, 168
In this action, the case was adjourned for more than two years following the declaration of a mistrial. Defendant then filed a CPLR article 78 prohibition proceeding alleging that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a retrial because there was no “manifest necessity” demanding a mistrial. Order granting the writ of prohibition on the basis that the article 78 proceeding had been timely commenced under a “continuing harm” theory is reversed, where: 1) a four-month limitations period applies to article 78 proceedings and the petition here was filed more than two years after mistrial was declared; and 2) once the People demonstrated their intent to re-prosecute and the court began to calendar the case, defendant was obligated to initiate his article 78 challenge within the prescribed time frame.
Appellate Information
- Decided 10/21/2014
- Published 10/21/2014
Judges
Court
- Court of Appeals of New York