## Facts

- Levon Wilson, a recipient of poor relief, went to the Calumet Township Trustee’s office on November 9, 1973.
- During Wilson’s meeting with an employee, the trustee delivered the employee’s paycheck, which the employee placed in her desk.
- After the interview ended, Wilson went around the desk, knocked the employee from her chair, and took the paycheck.
- Police found a knife on Wilson’s person.
- At trial, the State introduced a photocopy of the stolen paycheck, supported by testimony describing and identifying the copy.
- Wilson was charged with robbery; the jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of theft.

## Issues

1. Whether double jeopardy barred a second trial after the court declared a mistrial upon finding Wilson incompetent to stand trial after the jury was impaneled and proceedings had begun.
2. Whether admitting into evidence a knife found on Wilson’s person was erroneous.
3. Whether admitting a photocopy of the stolen paycheck, rather than the original, violated best-evidence and foundation requirements.

## Decision

- The court held retrial was not barred because the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity once incompetency was determined during trial.
- The court upheld admission of the knife found on Wilson.
- The court upheld admission of the photocopy of the paycheck based on identification and supporting testimony.
- The theft conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A mistrial declared sua sponte does not bar reprosecution when there is manifest necessity or when the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated.
- Manifest necessity is established when a defendant is determined to be incompetent to stand trial during trial, permitting a later retrial once competency is restored.
- Physical evidence connected to the defendant and the charged events may be admitted if relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.
- A duplicate document (including a photocopy) may be admitted when properly identified and authenticated, without requiring production of the original where accuracy is not genuinely in dispute.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Wilson’s theft conviction, holding that double jeopardy did not preclude a second trial because incompetency discovered during trial created manifest necessity for a mistrial, and concluding that the knife and an authenticated photocopy of the stolen paycheck were properly admitted.


Wilson v. State, 348 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976)