Blueford v. State Of Ark.

• Decision Date: 20 January 2011
• Docket Number: No. CR 10-554,CR 10-554
• Parties: ALEX BLUEFORD, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2011 Ark. 8

ALEX BLUEFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE.

No. CR 10-554

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.

Filed: January 20, 2011

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION, NO. CR2008-2797, HON. LANCE L. HANSHAW, JUDGE, AFFIRMED.

DONALD L. CORBIN, Associate Justice

Appellant Alex Blueford brings this interlocutory appeal from the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying his motions to prevent his retrial on a pending capital-murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections. On appeal, Blueford asserts that jeopardy attached and prevents his retrial because the jury determined during his trial that he was not guilty of capital murder and its lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. We find no error and affirm.

The record reflects that on July 15, 2008, Appellant was charged with capital murder in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(9)(A) (Repl. 2006) based on the State's allegation that Blueford, acting under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life, caused the death of Matthew McFadden, Jr., a person fourteen years of age or younger. Appellant was initially tried in August 2009. Following the presentation of evidence, the circuit court instructed the jury on the pertinent definitions of capital murder,

Page 2

first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. The circuit court also gave the transitional instruction, AMI Crim. 2d 302, to guide the jury's transition from one offense to the next. The transitional instruction provided in relevant part that "if you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge[d offense or lesser included offense just considered], you will then consider the charge of [the next lesser included offense]."

During deliberations, the jury submitted a note to the circuit court stating that "a juror would like to know what happens if we cannot agree on a charge at all." The jury was returned to the court room and the circuit court gave an "Allen instruction," requesting that they retire for further deliberations in an attempt to reach a verdict. The jury sent out a second note indicating that they remained deadlocked. When the jurors returned to the courtroom, the following colloquy took place between the circuit court and the jury forewoman:

The Court: All right, Court's back in session. Madam foreman, the Court has a note from the jury stating, (as read), "The jury cannot agree on any one charge in this case."
Are you telling this Court that you're hopelessly deadlocked on every charge?
Juror Number One: I'm not sure I understand what you mean, sir. To consider-
The Court: Well, you're obviously in your agreement-any-any charge, conviction of any charge, or even a not guilty finding has to be unanimous. All 12 have to agree.
Juror Number One: Right.

Page 3

The Court: My question to you is, are you so deadlocked that you're not going to be able to reach an agreement no matter how long we stay here tonight?
Juror Number One: I would say that statement would be true, yes.
The Court: Well, that's not my statement, that's a question.
Juror Number One: Oh, the answer is yes, we are deadlocked.
The Court: All right, hopelessly?
Juror Number One: I would say so, sir, yes.
The Court: All right. If you have your numbers together, and I don't want names, but if you have your numbers I would like to know what your count was on capital murder.
Juror Number One: That was unanimous against that. No.
The Court: Okay, on murder in the first degree?
Juror Number One: That was unanimous against that.
The Court: Okay. Manslaughter?
Juror Number One: Nine for, three against.
The Court: Okay. And negligent homicide?
Juror Number One: We did not vote on that, sir.
The Court: Did not vote on that.
Juror Number One: No, sir. We couldn't get past the manslaughter. Were we supposed to go past that? I thought we were supposed to go one at a time.

Page 4

The court then stated that it appeared the jury had not completed its deliberations, and the court again requested the jury to deliberate further. While the jury resumed deliberations, counsel for Appellant requested that the court submit verdict forms to be completed by the jurors on the counts that they had decided upon. The State objected, noting that the jury had resumed its deliberations and had not yet made any findings. The circuit court denied...