Under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, no person "shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996) (citations omitted). The Pennsylvania Constitution similarly provides that "No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . . ."
This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary." Commonwealth v. Mattis, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (Pa. Super. 1996). Under both the federal and state constitutions, double jeopardy bars retrial where the prosecutor's misconduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
This Court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)."The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall ‘be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ "
Appellant's challenge raises a question of law. As with all legal questions, our standard of review is de novo.See generally Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996). Retrial after a hung jury normally does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
"An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law." Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa. Super. 2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa. Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)). "This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary."
This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary.” Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)). In determining whether double jeopardy bars retrial following a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, we adhere to the following standards:
“An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law.” Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (Pa.Super.1996)[, appeal denied, 547 Pa. 752, 692 A.2d 564 (1997) ] ). “This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary.” Wood, supra at 220 (quoting Mattis, supra at 410).
This Court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996). "The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall `be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.'"
This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary." Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996). "The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall `be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.'"
¶ 11 "An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law." Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa.Super. 2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa. Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)). "This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary."