State v. Madison
Decision Date | 07 January 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 3624,3624 |
Citation | 114 Ariz. 221,560 P.2d 405 |
Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. O'Dell MADISON, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III and Thomas G. Bakker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Westover, Choules, Shadle & Bowen, P.C. by Allen J. Clark, Yuma, for appellant.
The defendant, O'Dell Madison, appeals from a jury verdict and judgment of guilt to first degree burglary and grand theft, A.R.S. § 13--302 and § 13--663, with a prior conviction, A.R.S. § 13--1649(A)(1). Sentence was imposed at not less than 12 years nor more than 15 years for the burglary; and not less than 10 years nor more than 12 years for the grand theft, said sentences to run concurrently. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S.
The issues are:
1. Was the defendant twice placed in jeopardy where the trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial over the defendant's objection following a jury verdict of guilty and the defendant was thereafter retried?
2. Did the trial court's remarks to the prospective jury panel prejudice the defendant?
3. Did the State prove the elements of the crime?
4. Was the defendant denied a speedy trial?
The pertinent facts are as follows. By indictment the defendant was charged with committing: burglary and grand theft of the Western Auto Store on 18 April 1975; burglary and grand theft of Rascos Dry Goods Store on 12 May 1975; burglary and grand theft of Western Auto on 20 May 1975. The alleged crimes all occurred in Yuma, Arizona. There was, in addition, one count of receiving stolen property. Trial was set for 10 July 1975. Three days before trial the State filed an addendum to the indictment alleging a prior conviction for first degree burglary. The defendant admitted the prior conviction at trial outside the presence of the jury. The jury returned verdicts of guilty to the charge of burglary and of grand theft of Western Auto on 18 April 1975. The defendant received directed verdicts or acquittals on the remaining counts.
On the day set for sentencing, 21 July 1975, the trial court realized that the defendant, who had been tried and convicted by an eight person jury, was, in fact, entitled to have been tried by a twelve person jury under Arizona Constitution and statute and the following transpired:
I didn't even think about it until now which leaves me in the position of thinking that it would be improper to sentence Mr. Madison on the basis of a prior conviction.
And:
'THE COURT: Number 7797, the State of Arizona versus O'Dell Madison. This matter was continued to this hour having previously been called for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment and sentence at which time I made the observation that we tried the case with eight jurors as opposed to 12, the prior being alleged, we ought to have tried the case with 12 jurors, at least in my opinion.
Now, gentlemen, on my own motion I am declaring a mistrial as to all counts with which Mr. Madison was charged and the matter will be reset for trial on all counts within 60 days of today's date.
The matter will be set down for trial on Wednesday, September 10, 1975, at 9:30. Is there anything further or record either of you gentlemen wish to make at this time?
The defendant was retried 19 September 1975 on the charge of burglary and of grand theft of Western Auto on 18 April 1975, the charges for which he was previously convicted, and was again found guilty as to both. The defendant was not retried on the five charges for which he was previously acquitted.
The issue here is whether a defendant may be retried consonant with the prohibition against double jeopardy of the Fifth Amendment and Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, § 10, where the trial court sua sponte declares a mistrial over the defendant's objection, after the jury verdict but before the judgment and sentence.
The United States Supreme Court has consistently followed the approach first announced in United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824) concerning the double jeopardy clause in the context of a declaration of mistrial over the defendant's objection. Perez, supra, states that the trial court is vested with authority to declare a mistrial, and the defendant may be retried consistently with the Fifth Amendment where, taking all circumstances in account, the court finds that 'there is a manifest necessity for the (mistrial), or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.' 9 Wheat. at 580, 6 L.Ed. at 165. The court must scrupulously exercise its sound discretion in determining that the ends of public justice would not be served by a continuation of the proceedings. United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971).
While the Supreme Court has emphasized that their double jeopardy decisions are considered 'on the particular facts and thus escape meaningful categorization,' Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 at 464, 93 S.Ct. 1066 at 1070, 35 L.Ed.2d 425 at 431 (1973), we think that the circumstances of the instant case can be analogized to previous decisions, summarized by Mr. Justice Rehnquist in Illinois v. Somerville, supra, involving a declaration of mistrial due to some type of serious error in the proceedings. In United States v. Perez, supra, the court held that 'manifest necessity' justified the discharge of jurors unable to reach a verdict and therefore the double jeopardy clause did not bar retrial. Retrial was permitted in Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271, 15 S.Ct. 73, 39 L.Ed. 146 (1894), where a mistrial was declared after the trial judge learned that one of the jurors had been a member of the grand jury that indicted the defendant, and in Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 37 S.Ct. 107, 61 L.Ed. 244 (1916), where after the first jury had been empaneled and sworn they were discharged after the State discovered that the defendant had not pled to the indictment. In Illinois v. Somerville, supra, the respondent was indicted for theft. After the jury was sworn in, the prosecutor realized that the indictment was fatally deficient under Illinois law in that it did not allege an essential element of the crime charged. Such defect could not be waived by the respondent's failure to object and could have been asserted on appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding to overturn a final judgment of conviction. The trial court concluded that further proceedings under the indictment would be useless and ordered a mistrial over the defendant's objection. Justice Rehnquist concluded that in light of the Illinois criminal procedural rules the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary and was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. He noted:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Escobedo
...not be given. We need not address this argument because we affirm on other grounds. 2. Seven years before Henley, in State v. Madison, 114 Ariz. 221, 560 P.2d 405 (1977), the court dealt with this same issue but was not required to decide it. In Madison, the trial judge declared a mistrial ......
-
King v. Com.
...fewer than twelve jurors—apply only to the period before jeopardy has attached, it could have said so. See, e.g., State v. Madison, 114 Ariz. 221, 560 P.2d 405, 408 (1977) (noting that, under applicable Arizona statute, "the parties with the consent of the court in a criminal case, may waiv......
-
State v. Binford
...to a possible sentence of more than 30 years and under our constitution and statute, was entitled to a jury of twelve. State v. Madison, 114 Ariz. 221, 560 P.2d 405 (1977); Cf. State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App. 111, 524 P.2d 506 (1974). The State does not argue there was a waiver, which would r......
-
State v. Miguel
... ... State v. Buffum, 125 Ariz. 488, 610 P.2d 1049 (1980). See also State v. Cook, 122 Ariz. 539, 596 P.2d 374 (1979). There is dicta to the same effect in State v. Parker, 22 Ariz.App. 111, 115, 524 P.2d 506, 510 (1974), and State v. Madison, 114 Ariz. 221, 224, 560 P.2d 405, [125 Ariz. 541] ... 408 (1977). Under these circumstances, our relevant constitutional and statutory provisions mandate that appellant be granted a twelve member jury ... If as a result of the new trial appellant is convicted of the charges, ... ...