Case Summary - Jason Wayne Hunter v. State

The trial court granted a mistrial in Jason Hunter's case when it found out that one of the jurors had sat on the grand jury. On the retrial, the trial court denied Hunter's claim that the mistrial was not a manifest necessity and that subsequent prosecution should be jeopardy barred. The court of appeals disagreed, and held that double jeopardy did bar Hunter's prosecution. The State petitioned for discretionary review. The CCA granted it. Then, Hunter died.

Normally, this would lead to a permanent abatement to a higher court. [Hee, hee, hee, how cute, appellate humor.] But, in circumstances where the State appeals, dismissal is proper. Why? Because when the defendant appeals and dies in the middle of his appeal, dismissal makes the case final without consideration of the defendnt's appellate argument. However, when the State appeals, the dismissal would have no practical effect on matters below, and an ultimate reversal would put the State in the position of retrying a dead man and have no practical effect. Thus, Judge Price, writing for a unanimous majority, dismissed the State's petition for discretionary review.

Here's a link to the underlying opinion. Here's a link to the underlying case information. And here's a link to my post on the oral argument, and a link to my post when the issue was granted.

[Does this mean that the underlying, published opinion will be withdrawn as it would in a permanent abatement sitution? If so, then why not just permanently abate everything without the need for this exception and discussion. If not, is it fair to say this has "no practical effect" when the precedent will effect other cases? I'm dubitante about the need for this exception.]