State v. Patrick M.

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the murder charge, holding that he failed to show that the prosecutor's improper use of his post-warning silence was intended to prevent an acquittal the prosecutor believed was imminent. The court also held that the defendant preserved his double jeopardy claim despite seeking a new trial rather than a mistrial, and that the claim was reviewed de novo because the record involved no supplemental fact-finding. The court declined to expand or overrule its existing federal and state double jeopardy precedents.