Section 605. Mistrial

(A) Motions to withdraw a juror are abolished.

(B) When an event prejudicial to the defendant occurs during trial only the defendant may move for a mistrial; the motion shall be made when the event is disclosed. Otherwise, the trial judge may declare a mistrial only for reasons of manifest necessity.

Comment

This rule replaces the practice of moving for the withdrawal of a juror.

Examples of ‘‘manifest necessity’’ can be found in Commonwealth v. Stewart, 456 Pa. 447, 317 A.2d 616 (1974); Commonwealth v. Brown, 451 Pa. 395, 301 A.2d 876 (1973); United States ex rel. Russo v. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, 483 F.2d 7 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1023 (1973; United States v. Tinney, 473 F.2d 1085 (3rd Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 412 U. S. 928 (1973); United States v. Jorn, 440 U. S. 470 (1971); and United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (1824); see also Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U. S. 458 (1973).

See Rule 587(B) for the procedures when a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is filed.

Official Note

Rule 1118 adopted January 24, 1968, effective August 1, 1968; amended June 28, 1974, effective September 1, 1974; renumbered Rule 605 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised June 4, 2013, effective July 4, 2013.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

Final Report explaining the June 4, 2013 revision of the Comment adding a citation to Rule 587 concerning motions to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 3331 (June 22, 2013).

The provisions of this Rule amended June 4, 2013, effective July 4, 2013, 43 Pa.B. 3330. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (364118).