Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. 1997). · Go Syfert
Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
80 citation events (58 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clarence M. Woody v. State (gactapp, 2020-10-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clarence M. Woody v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Okay?” 6 The transcript of the pre-trial proceedings reveals that the judge further responded, “We’ve got a jury sitting in the jury room ready to go, and now we’re hearing motions.” 7 notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was thereby deprived of due process of law, unless the . . . actions were intended to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997) (rejecting argument that where the conduct is malicious and deliberate, that – in and of itself – should be sufficient to invoke the bar of doubl…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yarbrough v. State
Ga. · 2018 · confidence medium
Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Nev. · 2017 · confidence medium
Most . . . have followed the federal [Oregon v. Kennedy] standard." See Tomlin v. State, 695 So. 2d 157, 165 (Ala. 1996); Green, 380 S.W. at 374-75; State v. Michael J., 875 A.2d 510, 534-35 (Conn. 2005); Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464, 465-66 (Ga. 1997); State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532,537-38 (Kan. 2007); State v. Chase, 754 A.2d 961, 963-64 (Me. 2000); State v. DeMarco, 511 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (N.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Nev. · 2017 · confidence medium
Most . . . have followed the federal [Oregon v. Kennedy] standard." See Tomlin v. State, 695 So. 2d 157, 165 (Ala. 1996); Green, 380 S.W. at 374-75; State v. Michael J., 875 A.2d 510, 534-35 (Conn. 2005); Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464, 465-66 (Ga. 1997); State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532,537-38 (Kan. 2007); State v. Chase, 754 A.2d 961, 963-64 (Me. 2000); State v. DeMarco, 511 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (N.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)
Nev. · 2017 · confidence medium
Most . . . have followed the federal [Oregon v. Kennedy] standard." See Tomlin v. State, 695 So. 2d 157, 165 (Ala. 1996); Green, 380 S.W. at 374-75; State v. Michael J., 875 A.2d 510, 534-35 (Conn. 2005); Dinning v. State, 485 S.E.2d 464, 465-66 (Ga. 1997); State v. Morton, 153 P.3d 532,537-38 (Kan. 2007); State v. Chase, 754 A.2d 961, 963-64 (Me. 2000); State v. DeMarco, 511 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (N.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Horace W. Whatley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Actions of the prosecutor constituting even intentional prosecutorial misconduct do not raise the bar of double jeopardy, . . . unless the prosecutor’s actions were intended to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Whatley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jenkins v. State
Ga. · 2014 · confidence medium
Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roscoe v. State
Ga. · 2009 · confidence medium
(Cits.)’ *327 [Cit.]” Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Traylor
Ga. · 2007 · confidence medium
(Cits.)’ [Cit.]” Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Byrd v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lackes v. State, 274 Ga. 297, 300-301 (3) ( 553 SE2d 582 ) (2001) (prosecutor’s incorrect belief that prejudicial evidence would be admissible is insufficient without more to establish intent to provoke a mistrial); Williams v. State, 268 Ga. 488 ( 491 SE2d 377 ) (1997) (connecting defendant with an irrelevant “theft ring” insufficient without more to establish intent to provoke a mistrial); Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880-881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997) (even intentional prosecutorial misconduct is insufficient without intent to subvert bar of double jeopardy); Steward v. Stat…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mathis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Haralson v. State, 227 Ga. App. 118 (1) ( 488 SE2d 497 ) (1997); Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
State v. D’Auria, 229 Ga. App. 34, 35 ( 492 SE2d 918 ) (1997), rev’d on other grounds, D’Auria v. State, 270 Ga. 499 ( 512 SE2d 266 ) (1999), citing Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Thomas
Ga. · 2002 · confidence medium
Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880-881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997); State v. D’Auria, 229 Ga. App. 34, 35 ( 492 SE2d 918 ) (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nance v. State
Ga. · 2001 · confidence medium
In addition, a retrial is barred when a criminal defendant’s conviction is reversed due to intentional prosecutorial misconduct “purposefully designed to secure an opportunity to retry the case. . . .” Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steward v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880-881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harridge v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
If I did[,] I don’t remember.” 3 Carroll v. State, 222 Ga. App. 560, 561 ( 474 SE2d 737 ) (1996). 4 Zant v. Moon, 264 Ga. 93, 100 (3) ( 440 SE2d 657 ) (1994). 5 See generally Moody v. State, 210 Ga. App. 431, 432 (1) ( 436 SE2d 545 ) (1993) (an existing scientific report in the possession of the state crime lab is deemed to be available to the district attorney for purposes of discovery under OCGA § 17-7-211 (b)). 6 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Miller v. State, 236 Ga. App. 825, 829 (2) ( 513 SE2d 27 ) (1999). 7 See Carroll, supra. 8 See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Jones v. State, 271 Ga. 516, 517 (2) ( 520 SE2d 454 ) (1999); compare Brinson v. State, 208 Ga. App. 556 (1) ( 430 SE2d 875 ) (1993). 5 Matthews v. State, 224 Ga. App. 407, 409 (2) ( 481 SE2d 235 ) (1997); see Johnson v. State, 156 Ga. App. 411, 413 (2) ( 274 SE2d 778 ) (1980). 6 Mallory v. State, 164 Ga. App. 569, 570 (2) ( 298 SE2d 290 ) (1982); see Matthews, supra, 224 Ga. App. at 409 (2). 7 Cf. Jones v. State, 236 Ga. App. 716, 717 (1) ( 513 SE2d 254 ) (1999) (jury could estimate the value of a door to a residence). 8 See Pirkle v. State, 221 Ga. App. 657 ( 472 SE2d 478 ) (1996); Payne…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Palmer v. State
Ga. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U. S. 667 (102 SC 2083, 72 LE2d 416) (1982); Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 881 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mosley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Harrell v. State (2×)
Ga. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879, 880 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997). 9 The jury could have inferred from the *892 evidence presented that Harrell trapped the cat, killed it, and placed it in Webb’s mailbox, and the evidence thus authorized a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Harrell was guilty of the crime of cruelty to animals.
discussed Cited "see" Sherrod v. State (2×)
Ga. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Mohamed v. State (2×)
Ga. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Ritter v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Childress v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dinning v. State, 267 Ga. 879 ( 485 SE2d 464 ) (1997).
Dinning
v.
the State
S97A0356.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Apr 28, 1997.
485 S.E.2d 464
Wolfe & Steel, Brian Steel, Michael R. Duponte, for appellant., Michael H. Crawford, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, for appellee.
Hines.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published
Hines, Justice.

Jack Dinning was found guilty on May 13, 1993, of two counts of murder in the shooting deaths of Eric Rider and his mother, Dorothy Rider, two counts of armed robbery involving the Riders, and one count of burglary of the Riders’ home. On May 20, 1996, this Court reversed the convictions because the State failed to disclose agreements of immunity with material witnesses in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (92 SC 763, 31 LE2d 104) (1972). Dinning v. State, 266 Ga. 694, 696 (2) (470 SE2d 431) (1996). However, it was also determined that the evidence at trial was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), to find Dinning guilty of the charged crimes. [1] Dinning, supra at 695[*880] (1) . Dinning filed a plea in bar asserting that the prosecution’s misconduct, in failing to disclose the immunity agreements and reveal alleged exculpatory and impeaching evidence, was of such gravity as to give rise to the bar of double jeopardy, thereby erecting a constitutional prohibition against retrial on the charged offenses. The trial court denied the plea, and Dinning appeals. We affirm.

Dinning’s convictions were reversed for prosecutorial misconduct, not evidentiary insufficiency. Double jeopardy prohibits the retrial of a criminal defendant when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction at the initial trial. Burks v. United States, 437 U. S. 1 (98 SC 2141, 57 LE2d 1) (1978); Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 310 (1) (369 SE2d 232) (1988); OCGA § 16-1-8 (d) (2) . Thus, generally the double jeopardy bar does not impede retrial after a mistrial or reversal on appeal. Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U. S. 667 (102 SC 2083, 72 LE2d 416) (1982); United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662 (16 SC 1192, 41 LE 300) (1896); Williams v. State, supra. However, when a criminal defendant is granted a mistrial or his or her convictions are reversed because the prosecution engages in intentional misconduct purposefully designed to secure an opportunity to retry the case, a retrial will not be permitted. See Oregon v. Kennedy, supra; Williams v. State, supra at 312; and State v. D’Auria, 222 Ga. App. 615, 616 (475 SE2d 678) (1996).

Dinning urges that if the prosecutor’s conduct is malicious and[*881] deliberate that, in and of itself, should be sufficient to invoke the bar of double jeopardy. What is critical is the objective of the prosecutor’s improper conduct. Unless a prosecutor is trying to abort the trial, his or her misconduct will not prohibit a retrial. See Oregon v. Kennedy, supra; Williams v. State, supra.

Decided April 28, 1997. Wolfe & Steel, Brian Steel, Michael R. Duponte, for appellant. Michael H. Crawford, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, for appellee.
[A]ctions of the prosecutor constituting even intentional prosecutorial misconduct do not raise the bar of double jeopardy, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was thereby deprived of due process of law, unless the prosecutor’s actions were intended to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. [Cits.]

Williams v. State, supra at 312. Because the record does not show that the conduct complained of was for the purpose of aborting the trial and securing an opportunity to retry the case, the trial court properly concluded that double jeopardy does not bar Dinning’s retrial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
1

This Court’s earlier decision detailed the facts of the case. Eric Rider, who was confined to a wheelchair, lived with his 91-year-old mother near Lake Rabun. Mr. Rider kept at home rare gold and silver coins, numerous firearms, and stacks of old, mostly uncirculated fifty-dollar bills (many from 1934). On February 15, 1989, the Riders’ bodies were found[*880] inside the residence, which had been thoroughly ransacked. Investigation revealed that coins, paper money, and weapons were missing. It further revealed that both victims had been killed by multiple gunshots, which could have been fired from a High Standard .22 caliber pistol.

At the time of the murders, which likely occurred on January 21, 1989, Dinning had $2.34 in his checking account, less than $250 in two savings accounts, and was earning between $5 and $5.25 an hour at his handyman job. On the day after the murders, Dinning telephoned Dennis Coton in Florida seeking help in buying a pound of marijuana, which Dinning estimated would cost $1,600. After traveling to Florida, Dinning gave Coton several weapons, including a High Standard .22 caliber pistol, and a 1922 silver dollar. He also purchased one pound of marijuana from Charles Piecirillo and Fred Venable, for which he paid $1,500 in fifty-dollar bills, some of which were printed in 1934. Dinning made two other marijuana purchases from Piecirillo and Venable in February and April for $22,500 and paid for these purchases with fifty-dollar bills. In May and July 1989, Dinning sold rare gold and silver coins which had belonged to Mr. Rider, telling the purchaser the coins belonged to his wife. He also sold several guns later identified as belonging to Mr. Rider.

In early 1991, police traced one of the guns back to Dinning, who told them on three separate occasions that he purchased the weapon at a flea market. After further investigation revealed the coin sales and marijuana purchases, Dinning was arrested on May 19, 1992. Upon learning of his son’s arrest, Dinning’s father telephoned Coton, and discussed disposing of the .22 caliber pistol by throwing it off a certain bridge. The weapon was recovered from the bridge, and was identified as belonging to Mr. Rider.

Dinning stated that Mr. Rider had given him money and guns as payment for buying other guns for Mr. Rider and that Mr. Rider had given him the coins to use for a gun sale, but when that deal fell through Mr. Rider told Dinning to hold the coins until the next sale, which never occurred.