AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, Jonathan Soto, who was tried for multiple offenses following the execution of a search warrant at his residence related to an investigation for unlawful possession of a firearm. During the first trial, a mistrial was declared after a witness, Agent Stanley Jordan, mentioned the basis for the search warrant—possession of weapons—contrary to a pre-trial ruling excluding this information. The Defendant was retried and convicted on all charges (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the retrial violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy due to prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial that resulted in a mistrial (para 6).
• Appellee (State): The specific arguments of the Appellee are not detailed in the decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's retrial violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy due to prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial that resulted in a mistrial (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions (para 14).

Reasons

• B. Zamora, J., with Linda M. Vanzi, J., and Zachary A. Ives, J., concurring, held that the retrial did not violate the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. The court applied a three-part test from State v. Breit to determine whether retrial was barred due to prosecutorial misconduct. It was assumed that the first two factors of the Breit test were met but focused on the third factor—whether the prosecutor acted with willful disregard of the possibility of a mistrial. The court found that the prosecutor's conduct, while improper, did not rise to the level of willful disregard sufficient to bar retrial. The court distinguished the present case from others where more egregious prosecutorial misconduct had occurred, noting that the Defendant pointed to only one instance of an improper question by the prosecutor and did not argue that the trial was otherwise unfair. The court also rejected the Defendant's argument that the district court erred by not holding a hearing to determine the reason for the prosecutor's question or to inquire whether the prosecutor had indeed admonished the police witnesses not to mention the basis for the search warrant, stating it was incumbent upon the Defendant to request such a hearing (paras 6-13).