Summary
The Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed a special action challenging retrial after a mistrial in a joint criminal trial. The court held that the defendants did not consent to a mistrial without prejudice and that no manifest necessity supported the mistrial. It vacated the mistrial order and directed the superior court to dismiss the charges with prejudice because double jeopardy barred retrial.
Holdings
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying dismissal with prejudice because the record supported its finding that the prosecutor's reference to the precluded evidence resulted from an unintentional mistake rather than intentional conduct known to be improper and prejudicial.
- Neither defendant consented to a mistrial without prejudice. A request for a mistrial joined with or conditioned on dismissal with prejudice does not establish consent to retrial when counsel clarifies the limitation or withdraws consent before the jury is dismissed.
- The superior court abused its discretion by declaring a mistrial without the defendants' consent because it failed to consider their interests in continuing the trial, and continuation would not have made reversal on appeal certain.
- Because neither defendant consented to the mistrial and no manifest necessity justified it, the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions barred retrial.
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor's inadvertent presentation of a reference to precluded evidence constituted intentional prosecutorial misconduct requiring dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
- Whether the defendants consented to a mistrial without prejudice by requesting or joining in a mistrial request before the jury was dismissed.
- Whether manifest necessity supported a mistrial without the defendants' consent when the superior court failed to consider their interests in continuing the trial and reversal on appeal was not certain.
- Whether the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions barred retrial after the mistrial.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (30)
- Milke v. Mroz, 236 Ariz. 276, 279, ¶ 2 (App. 2014)(cited)
- State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 437-38, ¶¶ 18, 22 (2004)(applied)
- State v. Kelly, 257 Ariz. 128, 132, ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2024)(cited)
- State v. Aguirre, __ Ariz. __, __, ¶¶ 25, 37, 43 (App. 2025)(applied)
- State v. Korovkin, 202 Ariz. 493, 495, ¶¶ 5, 8 (App. 2002)(applied)
- State v. Dickinson, 242 Ariz. 120, 123-25, ¶¶ 12, 17-20 (App. 2017)(applied)
- Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 108-09 (1984)(applied)
- State v. Jorgenson, 198 Ariz. 390, 392, ¶ 6 (2000)(cited)
- State v. Smith, 250 Ariz. 69, 86, ¶ 62 (2020)(cited)
- McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 150 Ariz. 274, 276-78 (1986)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 30.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…