Skip to main content
Tag

Mistrial

Nov 16
Love2
Jury Note Not Verdict Jeopdardy Traylor

Unanimous “Not Guilty” Jury Note was Not a Verdict. Convicted on Retrial

By Jury Trial

Jury Note Not Verdict Jeopdardy TraylorThe Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion regarding whether a jury can informally acquit based on a unanimous jury note. The issue facing the court was whether a jury note, which provided the jury’s voting breakdown of the charged offense and the lesser included offense, could be considered an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes even though a mistrial was later declared because the jury could not reach a unanimous decision.

Traylor v. State, (Court of Criminal Appeals, 2018).

The Facts—The Trial Court Declared a Mistrial After Unanimous Jury Note.

Appellant was on trial for first-degree burglary of a habitation. At the conclusion of his trial, the jury was charged with determining whether Appellant was guilty of first-degree burglary, the charged offense, or second-degree burglary, a lesser-included offense. The difference between the two offenses is that the jury did not have to find that Appellant used a deadly weapon in order to convict him of the lesser included offense.

During deliberations the jury sent out a note stating that it unanimously agreed that Appellant was not guilty of the charged offense but indicated they were deadlocked (5-7) on the issue of guilt for the lesser-included offense. The trial court instructed the jury to keep deliberating before ultimately declaring a mistrial because the jury claimed they still could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Appellant was later re-tried and convicted of first-degree burglary. Appellant appealed this verdict, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a mistrial without a manifest necessity, and therefore, creating a double jeopardy violation.

The Court of Appeals Agreed with Appellant—Holding Appellant’s Subsequent Trial for First-Degree Burglary Was Barred Because The Jury’s Note Amounted to an Acquittal.

In agreeing with Appellant, the Court of Appeals cited United States Supreme Court decision, Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012). The Court of Appeals held the facts in Appellant’s case to be significantly distinguishable from Blueford; thus, warranting an acquittal. The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, disagreed and reversed for the reasons discussed below.

The Court of Criminal Appeals Reversed the Court of Appeals’ Decision—Holding the Jury Note Was Not a Final Verdict of Acquittal Because it Lacked The “Finality Necessary to Constitute an Acquittal.”

Double Jeopardy protects individuals from multiple prosecutions for the same offense. However, a trial may be ended without barring a subsequent prosecution for the same offense when “particular circumstances manifest a necessity” to declare a mistrial. Such circumstances include a jury’s inability to reach a verdict. For a jury note regarding the jury’s inability to reach a verdict to bar a subsequent prosecution, there must be some indication that the jury had “finally resolved” to acquit the defendant.

In Blueford, the Supreme Court held that the jury’s report of the vote count was not finally resolved to acquit the defendant because it lacked the “finality necessary to constitute an acquittal.” The Supreme Court noted that the vote count lacked finality because: “(1) the jury was still deadlocked on the lesser-included offense; (2) the jury continued deliberating after the reported vote count; (3) the foreperson gave no further indication that the jury was still unanimous; and (4) nothing in the jury instructions prohibited the jurors from revisiting the prior vote.”

Here, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the jury’s note also lacked the “finality necessary to constitute an acquittal” on the charged offense. The Court of Criminal appeals reasoned that the jury note lacked finality because the jury continued deliberating after the unanimous vote count and there was no indication that the vote on the charged offense remained unanimous throughout deliberations. Furthermore, the jury never filled out the Court’s verdict forms because, as reported by the jury, they still had “no decision.” Thus, while there are circumstances in which a jury can informally acquit a defendant, the facts in this case do not warrant an acquittal.

TAKEAWAY: It appears that the CCA might have come down differently if the jury had returned a 2nd note stating that they were still unanimous that the defendant was not guilty of the greater offense after all deliberations, or if the jury had signed the verdict form indicating such, even if there was ultimately no verdict. If you are faced with a similar circumstance, before the judge declares a mistrial, try to find a way to pin the jury down so that you can use it later if the state decides to try the case a second time.

Mar 29
Love1
Jury Unanimity Aggregate Theft Texas

What is Jury Unanimity for Aggregate Theft Cases?

By Jury Trial, Theft

Jury Unanimity Aggregate Theft TexasJury unanimity is required in every jury trial, whether it be felony or misdemeanor. This means that the jury must unanimously agree that the State has proven or failed to prove all elements of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty, then the judge will declare a mistrial. With some offenses, however, it can be a little unclear as to what jury unanimity actually requires. This is specifically so with aggregated theft cases.

What Is Aggregate Theft?

Aggregate theft is an offense where two or more thefts were committed “pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct” and the amounts combined determine the grade of the offense. Tex. Penal Code §31.09. Under Section 31.09, aggregate theft may be and often is considered as one offense. Even though it is considered one offense, each individual underlying theft act (where the amounts are aggregated) is considered an element. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas has held that for evidence to be sufficient the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully appropriated “enough property to meet the aggregated value alleged.” The state is not required to prove each underlying appropriation. However, the Court, until recently has left one question unanswered: Does the jury have to unanimously agree on all underlying theft transactions?  Meaning, if the defendant is alleged to have committed 10 separate theft acts (pursuant to a common scheme), do the jury have to agree on each, or some, or none?

Kent v. State—What is the Jury Unanimity requirement in Aggregate Theft cases?

Until recently there had been no holding by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas on whether jurors are required to unanimously agree on each underlying transaction that is used to comprise an aggregated theft charge. In Kent v. State the Court finally addressed this exact question.

See the full CCA opinion in Kent..

Kent was a mortgage broker indicted for theft from four complainants in an amount exceeding $200,000. The thefts were alleged to have occurred over a period of time and pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct. At trial, the defense requested a paragraph in the jury instructions that outlined each individual theft allegation and called for a unanimous verdict on each. The trial judge denied the defense request to include this paragraph.  The jury found Kent guilty of aggregate theft. On appeal, the Kent complained that the trial judge erred by refusing to include his requested paragraph in the jury instructions.  The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the jury should have been instructed that they must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt on each underlying transaction used to comprise an aggregate theft charge.

The State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas to determine whether this was correct. Reversing the lower courts holding, the CCA held that for an aggregated-theft case,

unanimity requires that the jurors agree that the threshold amount has been reached and that all the elements are proven for each specific instance of theft that the individual juror believes to have occurred. Every instance of theft need not be unanimously agreed upon by the jury.

In other words, it is only required that the jurors unanimously agree that two or more thefts pursuant to a common scheme, when combined, exceeded the threshold amount beyond a reasonable doubt, not that they unanimously agree on exactly which thefts were comprised to reach that amount.

Takeaway: When facing aggregated theft charges it is important to know that the jury does not have to unanimously agree that each underlying theft alleged in the indictment has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Bottom line, it’s the aggregated amount that matters. This is only a brief explanation of how the jury unanimity requirement plays a role in a case and if you should have any more questions contact our Fort Worth criminal defense team.

May 06
Love0

A Criminal Trial With Only Five Jurors

By Jury Trial

Can a defendant waive his constitutional right to trial by six jurors (in County Court)?

The United States Supreme Court has held that a state-law scheme that imposed a jury of fewer than six members upon a defendant, even one accused of only a misdemeanor offense, violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Ballew v. State, 435 U.S. 223 (1978). For Texans, Article V, Section 17, of the Texas Constitution provides: “A jury in the County Court shall consist of six persons [.]” Furthermore, Section 62.301 of the Texas Government Code provides, without explicit exception, that a jury in a County Court “is composed of six persons.” Conspicuously, the similar Government Code provision (Section 62.201) requiring a 12-person jury in a District Court contains an exception that allows the parties to dispense with the full complement of jurors.

So what is the rule? Must a County Court jury have six or can it have less? The Supreme Court and the Texas Constitution and statutes call for six jurors in a misdemeanor criminal trial. But may the defendant waive this requirement? This issue was recently decided by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex Parte Garza.

In Ex Parte Garza, the defendant was set to be tried for misdemeanor DWI when one of the six petit jurors became ill and was hospitalized. The trial court continued the case for a few days in hopes that the ailing juror would recover, but he did not. The trial court then entertained the option of granting a mistrial for manifest necessity. The defense objected to the mistrial, stating that it has the jury that it wanted to hear the case. The defense requested another continuance or, in the alternative, to proceed to trial without the ailing juror. The trial judge denied the continuance and did not address the option of proceeding with fewer than six jurors. The trial court then granted a sua sponte mistrial over the defense objection.

When the case was reset for trial, the defendant filed a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that because the trial court prematurely terminated the prior proceedings without having considered a less drastic alternative, his right against double jeopardy was violated. The trial court denied relief, but the 1st District Court of Appeals (Houston) reversed. “The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred not to explore the less drastic alternative of conducting the trial without the full complement of six jurors.”

The CCA now affirms the judgment of the 1st Court of Appeals. Writing for the majority, Judge Price explained:

Once a defendant shows he is being tried for the same offense after declaration of a mistrial, to which he objected, a heavy burden shifts to the State to justify the trial court’s declaration of the mistrial. The State must demonstrate a “manifest necessity” for a mistrial, which is to say a “high degree” of necessity, and the trial court’s discretion to declare a mistrial based on manifest necessity is limited to, and must be justified by, extraordinary circumstances. That discretion is abused, we have said, whenever the trial court declares a mistrial without first considering the availability of less drastic alternatives and reasonably ruling them out.

Regarding whether the trial court could have proceeded with only five jurors (as a less drastic alternative the mistrial), the CCA noted that “this Court and its predecessor, the Texas Court of Appeals, have held for more than a century that the Code of Criminal Procedure does at least implicitly permit waiver of the right to six jurors in cases tried in County Court.” Quoting the Supreme Court in Ballew:

To deny [the accused] his power to [waive his right to a six person jury] is to convert a privilege into an imperative requirement.

Imposing such a requirement on Texas defendants was not something the CCA is willing to do. Citing a long history of cases dating back to the early 1900s, the CCA noted how Texas has consistently allowed a defendant to waive his right to trial by a full complement of jurors. Therefore, the CCA held that by terminating the trial proceedings without considering whether to allow the trial to proceed with five jurors, the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, a new trial is jeopardy barred.

Takeaway: Consistent with Texas jurisprudence for the last 120 years, a defendant may waive his right to trial by six jurors in a County Court and proceed with less than the full amount.

Presiding Judge Keller and Judge Cochran dissented without opinion.