State of Florida v. Jackalynn Elizabeth D'Auria

Viera, Florida criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with murder.



On November 17, 2020, the State charged Appellant with second-degree murder for allegedly stabbing and killing Amanda Ervin, Appellant's mother, with a knife. A jury trial occurred over three days in March 2023. During the trial, Appellant raised the State's alleged violations of Brady[1] and Giglio[2] for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence in the form of prior violence by the deceased, failing to disclose prior convictions of its key witness, Perry Lopreato, and allowing Lopreato to commit perjury at trial regarding his convictions. The parties also engaged in a Richardson[3] hearing following which Appellant argued that a mistrial with prejudice was warranted. The State responded that any error was inadvertent, and that it could be cured by recalling Lopreato and having him testify to his three felony convictions. Alternatively, the State argued for a mistrial without prejudice. Appellant's counsel responded that impeachment of Lopreato would no longer be effective.



On the alleged Brady violation, the court found the State did not suppress favorable evidence, and as to Giglio, the court found that the State did not know the testimony was false when it was requested. However, regarding the Richardson inquiry, while the court found the violation was inadvertent, it further found that it was substantial, and the violation substantially affected Appellant's due process rights and her ability to properly prepare for trial. The court declared a mistrial without prejudice, rather than with prejudice.



Prior to the retrial, Appellant moved to dismiss the charge based on prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy. Pertinent to this appeal, she argued that the court erred by declaring a mistrial without prejudice, despite the only motion before the court being a motion for mistrial with prejudice. Thus, she argued, the court failed to consider and reject all possible alternatives before declaring the mistrial in violation of Thomason v. State, 620 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1993). Therefore, Appellant argued, jeopardy attached and she could not be tried again for the second-degree murder of her mother. The court denied Appellant's motion to dismiss, finding the mistrial without prejudice was proper and that jeopardy did not attach.



A second trial occurred June 26-29 and July 5-7, 2023. The jury ultimately found Appellant guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter with a weapon. The court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced her to 30 years in the Department of Corrections, with 1,028 days as credit for time served.



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The case examines whether double jeopardy barred the reprosecution of the appellant after the trial court declared a mistrial without prejudice due to a discovery violation, despite the appellant's objection to this type of mistrial.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. MISTRIAL DECLARATION. The court addressed whether the trial court erred in declaring a mistrial without prejudice over the appellant's objection, without considering all possible alternatives, in light of an inadvertent Richardson violation.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS. The case involves claims about the State's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and prior convictions of a witness, assessing whether these actions constituted Brady and Giglio violations affecting the appellant's trial preparation.



Key Phrases Manslaughter with a weapon. Double jeopardy. Mistrial without prejudice. Prosecutorial misconduct. Due process rights.

Affirmed on appeal.