Background
Steven Michael Johnston was charged with three counts of second-degree child abuse. His bench trial began before Judge Kelly Ann Ramsey in January 2023 but was adjourned while the parties sought a transcript. Judge Ramsey subsequently took medical leave, and the case was reassigned to Judge Michael M. Hathaway.
Over Johnston’s objections, Judge Hathaway declared a mistrial in August 2024 because Judge Ramsey remained unavailable to finish the trial. After Judge Ramsey returned and the case was reassigned to her, Johnston moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing that he had not consented to the mistrial and that no manifest necessity justified it. Judge Hathaway later rescinded the mistrial order, reasoning that its necessity had evaporated, and denied Johnston’s dismissal motion as moot.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Judge Hathaway erred by rescinding the mistrial order. Under binding precedent interpreting MCR 6.435(B), a court may correct a substantive ruling based on a mistaken belief about the facts or law. Judge Hathaway did not identify such a mistake or conclude that his original ruling was erroneous; he relied instead on the later change in circumstances created by Judge Ramsey’s return.
The court further held that, even assuming MCR 6.435(B) authorized reconsideration, rescinding the order 16 months later was an abuse of discretion. Johnston had spent time and resources preparing for a second trial, and Judge Hathaway acted only after Johnston sought dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds. The appellate court reinstated the mistrial order, vacated the mootness ruling, and remanded for the trial court to decide Johnston’s double-jeopardy motion in the first instance without expressing a view on its merits.
Key Takeaways
- MCR 6.435(B) did not permit rescission based merely on changed circumstances where the judge did not find that the original order rested on a mistake of fact or law.
- Rescinding the mistrial order after 16 months, and only after Johnston asserted double jeopardy, fell outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
- The Court of Appeals did not decide whether double jeopardy bars another prosecution; that issue remains for the trial court on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision limits a trial court’s ability to undo a mistrial long after it was declared, particularly when rescission would avoid deciding a defendant’s constitutional challenge. A later change in circumstances does not itself establish the substantive mistake required by MCR 6.435(B).
The ruling also preserves the distinction between reinstating the procedural status created by a mistrial and determining the mistrial’s double-jeopardy consequences. Whether Johnston may be retried will depend on the trial court’s consideration of issues including consent and manifest necessity.