Lovett v. Com.

• Decision Date: 10 December 1984
• Citation: 393 Mass. 444,472 N.E.2d 236
• Parties: Edward J. LOVETT, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 236

472 N.E.2d 236

393 Mass. 444

Edward J. LOVETT, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Hampshire.

Argued Oct. 4, 1984.

Decided Dec. 10, 1984.

William C. Newman, Northampton (Wendy Sibbison, Northampton, with him), for defendant.

Charles K. Stephenson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

ABRAMS, Justice.

The defendant appeals from a determination by a District Court judge sitting in the jury-of-six session that there was manifest necessity for a mistrial based on defense counsel's opening. She therefore allowed the Commonwealth's motion for a mistrial. ¹ On appeal, the defendant bases his assertion that the judge erred when she found manifest necessity for a mistrial over the defendant's objection on three grounds: First, the judge should not have found defense counsel's opening remarks so prejudicial to the Commonwealth as to necessitate a mistrial. Second, the judge inadequately explored alternatives to a mistrial. Third, the judge failed to conduct a voir dire of the jury to determine if a factual basis existed for a finding of bias. We conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that there was manifest necessity for a mistrial. We remand this matter to the jury-of-six session for trial.

We summarize the prior proceedings. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, see G.L. c. 90, § 24 (1)(a), and operating a motor vehicle after the suspension of his license, see G.L. c. 90, § 23. After trial and conviction in the primary session of the District Court, the defendant appealed to the jury-of-six session for a trial de novo. After the jury was empaneled, the prosecutor made an opening statement. Defense counsel then made his opening. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 24(a)(1), 378 Mass. 895 (1979). In his opening, defense counsel stated the following: "Ladies and gentlemen, this individual here wanted to testify today and he wanted to tell you his story, but it is on my advice that I have told him that he is not to testify. So he will not be testifying to you today. He is fortunate in that there will be another person testifying for him, because there was another person there at the time .... He will testify about what happened at the arrest and what he saw and I submit to you that his testimony will not agree with the police officer's testimony."

After completion of defense counsel's opening statement, the prosecutor objected and moved for a mistrial based on those portions of the statement placing "the feelings, the opinions of the testimony of the defendant before the [j]ury." the judge then conferred with counsel. ² Thereafter, the judge declared a mistrial. On October 28, 1983, the Commonwealth filed a Request for Written Findings and a set of Proposed Findings. The court filed written findings on November 8, 1983. The judge concluded that the opening statement "had the effect of suggesting to the jury that the defendant wanted to testify and would have testified but his attorney ... had directed him not to testify [and] ... strongly implied that the defendant's testimony would have been in substantial agreement with the testimony of a witness called by the defense and ... at variance with the arresting officer." The judge also found that defense counsel's remarks created a prejudicial impact on the jurors so as to preclude the assurance of a fair trial and "could not be erased by curative instructions nor by a voir dire of the individual jurors for either would only have exacerbated the prejudicial impact of the remarks by further directing the attention of the jurors to [them]." The judge concluded that a manifest necessity existed for the declaration of a mistrial.

On November 16, 1983, a second judge denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy. Pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, the defendant filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County requesting that the complaints be dismissed by a single justice. On February 14, 1984, the single justice found that "the judge properly exercised her discretion in determining that there was a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial." The defendant appeals.

The defendant argues that the trial judge's findings are entitled to no deference in this court and that we should conduct an independent review. ³ In support of his argument, he suggests that since the court's findings closely followed those proposed by the Commonwealth, they do not bear the marks of independent judicial analysis, as required by Cormier v. Carty, 381 Mass. 234, 236-238, 408 N.E.2d 860 (1980), and therefore should be closely scrutinized.

In the instant case, however, there is no evidence that the judge did not make independent findings. "[T]he trial judge may and should consider proposed findings and conclusions where doing so will be of assistance in fashioning a judgment." Lewis v. Emerson, 391 Mass. 517, 524, 462 N.E.2d 295 (1984). The mere fact that the judge adopted certain language proposed by the Commonwealth does not call for us to disregard her findings. Id. The fact that the judge's written findings were not filed until almost two months after her allowance of the mistrial is not improper. See Commonwealth v. Reinstein, 381 Mass. 555, 558, 409 N.E.2d 1307 (1980).

The defendant's main argument is that a retrial violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because there was no manifest necessity for the declaration of a mistrial. Constitutional protection against double jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn. Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 370 Mass. 31, 33, 345 N.E.2d 386 (1976), citing Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 1062, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975). See Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 38, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 2162, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). Thus, in this case, jeopardy had attached. We do not understand the Commonwealth to be arguing otherwise.

In seeking a declaration of a mistrial over the defendant's objection, the Commonwealth must demonstrate a "manifest necessity" for the mistrial. Jones v. Commonwealth, 379 Mass. 607, 608, 616-617, 400 N.E.2d 242 (1980). Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505-506, 98 S.Ct. 824, 830-31, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824). The particular facts of each case of this type dictate the determination of "manifest necessity." Thames v. Commonwealth, 365 Mass. 477, 479, 312 N.E.2d 569 (1974). See Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1973). The issue before us is whether the judge abused her discretion in the determination of manifest necessity. Thames v. Commonwealth, supra.

The judge found that defense counsel's opening statement suggested that the defendant wanted to testify but would not at his counsel's direction. The judge further found that the opening suggested that if the defendant were to testify, his testimony would be in substantial agreement with the testimony of his witness. The judge concluded, based on her witnessing of the opening statement, two conferences with counsel, and knowledge of the case, that the prejudicial impact of counsel's remarks might preclude a fair trial. There is no error.

We accord deference to "the trial judge's discretionary determination that 'manifest necessity' exists only if the record reflects that the trial judge gave reasoned consideration to the various available alternatives as well as to questions of fairness before declaring a mistrial." Jones v. Commonwealth, supra, 379 Mass. at 622, 400 N.E.2d 242, citing Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 516-517, 98 S.Ct. 824, 835-36, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). The record and the judge's findings support the conclusion that the judge considered various alternatives before granting the mistrial. Further the judge is familiar with "the background of the case on trial, [and has heard] the tone of the argument as it was delivered and has observed the apparent reaction of the jurors." Arizona v. Washington, supra at 514, 98 S.Ct. at 834. Thus, "[i]f the judge ... believed that the statement of counsel was likely to result in an unjust verdict, we cannot say that [the] action was without justification." See Commonwealth v. Cronin, 257 Mass. 535, 537, 154 N.E. 176 (1926).

The defendant also offers numerous cases ⁴ for the proposition that improper argument, even by the prosecutor, does not necessitate a mistrial. The cases cited by the defendant are inapposite, however, because the fact that it is within a judge's discretion not to order a mistrial due to improper argument does not necessarily dictate the converse--that it is improper if a judge does order a mistrial. In Commonwealth v. Gouveia, 371 Mass. 566, 572, 358 N.E.2d 1001 (1976), cited by the defendant, we said, "Denial of a mistrial and reliance on curative instructions may be proper, in the judge's discretion, even in a case of clearly improper argument by a prosecutor" (emphasis supplied). The determination of a manifest necessity must be made by a judge on a case-by-case basis. The judge's findings reflect careful consideration of alternatives, specifically curative instructions and voir dire of the jury. Contrast Jones v. Commonwealth, supra, 379 Mass. at 618, 400 N.E.2d 242, and Couto v. Commonwealth, 18 Mass.App. 913, 914, 464 N.E.2d 75 (1984).

Specific...