PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES ROY STEIGER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 18, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 216717
Mason Circuit Court
LC No. 98-000369-FH
JAMES ROY STEIGER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Gribbs and White, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The prosecution appeals as of right the trial court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice
because double jeopardy guarantees barred retrial. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. Basic Facts and Procedural History
Defendant James Roy Steiger was tried by a jury on charges of uttering and publishing, MCL
750.249; MSA 28.446, and conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing, MCL 750.157a; MSA
28.354(1). During the trial, a police officer witness, testifying for the prosecution, indicated that he had
been unable to tape record his conversation with Steiger because Steiger had stated that he was on
parole and did not wish to make a taped statement. The trial court granted Steiger’s motion for a
mistrial. Subsequently, the trial court granted Steiger ’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice,
finding that, although the prosecution did not goad Steiger into moving for a mistrial, the prejudicial error
was attributable to the prosecution.
II. Double Jeopardy
A. The Prosecution’s Argument
The prosecution argues that the trial court erred by granting Steiger’s motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice because double jeopardy guarantees precluded retrial.
-1
B. Overview
Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution prohibit placing a defendant
twice in jeopardy for the same offense. US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 15. A mistrial granted
on a defendant’s own motion, or with his consent, unless provoked by intentional prosecutorial
misconduct, waives double jeopardy protection. However, if a mistrial is granted due to innocent error
by the prosecutor or the court, or for reasons which were beyond their control, retrial is not precluded.
People v Dawson, 431 Mich 234, 253; 427 NW2d 886 (1988).
C. Standard of Review
A double jeopardy issue presents a question of law, which we review de novo. People v
Walker, 234 Mich App 299, 302; 593 NW2d 673 (1999).
D. The Prosecution’s Duty
The prosecution has a duty to insure that a police officer witness does not venture into a
discussion of forbidden topics while giving testimony. People v McCartney, 46 Mich App 691, 694;
208 NW2d 547 (1973). In the instant case, the prosecution told the witness to avoid mentioning
Steiger’s parole status during his testimony. Nevertheless, the witness made such a statement in the
presence of the jury. Informing a jury that a defendant is on parole may be grounds for reversal.
People v Sabin, 223 Mich App 530, 538; 566 NW2d 677 (1997), remanded in lieu of lv to appeal
459 Mich 920 (1998), aff’d on recon 236 Mich App 1 (1999). Steiger’s assertion that the witness did
so deliberately is speculative. He does not dispute that the prosecution attempted to ensure that the
witness testified properly. In granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court found no intentional
misconduct on the part of the prosecution and, although the trial court found that the officer “failed to
heed” or “failed to abide,” it did not find that the failure was an intentional act intended to cause a
mistrial. Under these circumstances, granting the motion to dismiss the case with prejudice because
double jeopardy guarantees precluded retrial was error. Dawson, supra at 252.
We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the case and remand this matter for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Helene N. White
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.