State v. Phillips, S-1-SC-35881

Citation396 P.3d 153
Decision Date15 May 2017
Docket NumberNO. S-1-SC-35881,S-1-SC-35881
Parties STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clive PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

The Hastings Law Firm, Mark A. Earnest, Albuquerque, NM, Law Office of Theresa M. Duncan, Theresa M. Duncan, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice

{1} This case addresses the procedure for determining whether a jury is deadlocked. A jury is deadlocked or "hung" on a crime when the jurors cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of guilty or not guilty for that crime. If the jury is deadlocked on a crime, the defendant may be retried for that crime without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Conversely, double jeopardy protections prevent a retrial when the jury has rendered a verdict. It follows from these basic precepts that when a jury is unable to reach unanimous agreement on an open count with lesser included offenses, the judge must poll the jury and clearly establish on the record on which offense in the count the jury was deadlocked. The defendant may be retried on the offense on which the jury was deadlocked and any lesser included offenses. Importantly, the judge must confirm that the jury did not unanimously agree that the defendant was not guilty of one or more of the included offenses because the constitutional protection against double jeopardy precludes the State from prosecuting the defendant for such offense(s) since the jury's unanimous agreement on a verdict of not guilty constitutes an acquittal. If the judge fails to clearly establish on the record the offense(s) on which the jury was deadlocked, all but the lowest offense must be dismissed and the dismissed offense(s) cannot be retried.

{2} In this case, the jury announced that it was hung on Count 1, which required it to consider whether Defendant Clive Phillips was guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. The district court then polled the jurors. During the poll, seven jurors stated that the jury had unanimously agreed Phillips was not guilty of first-degree murder, but five jurors indicated the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that crime. The only verdict form given to the jury that exclusively referred to first-degree murder was the guilty verdict form, so there is no written record of whether the jury had acquitted Phillips of that crime or deadlocked during deliberations. The district court determined that the jury was hung on first-degree murder. We hold that the judge failed to clearly establish on the record whether the jury deadlocked on first-degree murder, and therefore Phillips can only be retried on the lowest offense in Count 1, which is voluntary manslaughter. We reverse the district court and remand to dismiss the first- and second-degree murder charges with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

{3} Phillips shot his former girlfriend and shot and killed his friend after discovering them in bed together at the home they all shared. The State prosecuted Phillips for a number of crimes, and seven counts were submitted to the jury after trial, including Count 1, which contained the crimes of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. The jurors did not enter a verdict on Count 1.

{4} To resolve Count 1, the jury had the option of entering a verdict finding Phillips guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter, or a verdict finding him not guilty of all three crimes. Because second-degree murder is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of both first- and second-degree murder, the model jury instruction used in this case requires jurors to individually consider each greater offense before considering a lesser offense. See UJI 14-6012 NMRA; UJI 14-250 NMRA. Under the model jury instruction, the jurors first must determine whether they unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder. UJI 14-250. If they agree that the defendant is guilty, the jury enters a guilty verdict for first-degree murder and does not need to consider second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. Id. If not, after reasonable deliberation, the jurors must then consider second-degree murder. Id. The jurors follow the same procedure with respect to second-degree murder and only consider voluntary manslaughter if they cannot unanimously agree that the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder. Id.

{5} If the jurors unanimously determine that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed any one of the aforementioned crimes, their verdict must be that the defendant is not guilty of that crime. Id. The jury in this case was not provided with a "not guilty" verdict form for each crime. Thus, if the jurors unanimously agreed that Phillips was not guilty of first-degree murder, they had no verdict form on which to indicate an acquittal on that specific crime because the only "not guilty" verdict form available to the jury on Count 1 required the jury to unanimously find Phillips not guilty of all three crimes.

{6} If the jurors cannot unanimously agree on any verdict for a count with lesser included offenses such as Count 1 in this case, the trial court must poll the jurors, beginning with the greatest offense, to determine whether they unanimously found the defendant not guilty of any individual offense within the count. Rule 5-611(D) NMRA. If the jury has unanimously found a defendant not guilty of any offense within the count, the trial court is required to enter a verdict of not guilty for the offense and for any greater degree of the offense. Id.

{7} The jurors in this case deliberated for three days. On the second day of deliberations, the jurors sent a note to the court indicating that some jurors believed that Phillips was guilty of second-degree murder because the State had proved that there was no sufficient provocation, and therefore those jurors were forced to vote against manslaughter. The note also indicated that the jurors agreed on all other elements of both offenses and asked the court for guidance on how to proceed. The note did not mention whether the jurors had voted to acquit Phillips or were deadlocked on first-degree murder. The court replied that the jurors had been "given all the procedural instructions." The jury continued to deliberate.

{8} On the third day, after approximately six additional hours of deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court reading: "What does it mean if we don't sign any of the papers on Count 1? We are hung." Concerning Count 1, the jury only received four papers for signature. The first was a verdict, which read "We find the defendant guilty of first degree murder by a deliberate killing as charged in Count 1." The second was a verdict, which read "We find the defendant guilty of second degree murder an included offense of Count 1." The third was a verdict, which read "We find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter an included offense of Count 1." The fourth and last was a verdict, which read "We find the defendant not guilty of Count 1."

{9} Later that afternoon, the court called in the jury, and a juror informed the court that the jurors had not reached a verdict on Count 1 and that they would not reach a verdict, even with more time to deliberate. With respect to the charges in Count 1, the court asked "so as to none of them, you could not reach an agreement?" to which the juror responded "No," which the court—despite the form of the question—interpreted to mean that the jurors could not reach an agreement. A jury poll was therefore required by Rule 5-611(D) to determine whether the jury had unanimously voted not guilty as to any offense included within Count 1.

{10} The district court polled the jurors to "inquire whether the jury ha[d] truly deadlocked on the greater offense of first-degree murder." As the court began its polling, the following colloquy ensued:

THE COURT: I need to ask each and every one of you the question as to whether you have truly deadlocked on the greater offense of first-degree murder. I will start with you, Mr. Ashe.
THE JUROR: So I don't understand how the—
THE COURT: Yes or no, whether you were deadlocked with regards to the greater offense of first-degree murder. You cannot reach a decision as to that charge?
THE JUROR: And the word "deadlock" meaning?
THE COURT: That you unanimously could not reach a decision with your fellow jurors as to that charge.
THE JUROR: I hate to say the wrong thing, but I believe we did reach a decision, and we went down to the next charge; is that correct?
THE COURT: So with regards to first-degree, you were not deadlocked with first-degree?
THE JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I'm asking you, Mr. Ashe.
THE JUROR: No.

The second juror also indicated that the jury was not deadlocked. The third juror initially responded to the question of whether the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder with "I thought we were," but eventually said no. The next three jurors also answered no.

{11} The seventh juror sought further clarification:

THE JUROR: Can I ask a question? I mean, deadlocked meaning we couldn't agree?
THE COURT: Correct. You could not arrive at a verdict.
THE JUROR: Then, yes, we were deadlocked.

The next four jurors also answered yes to indicate that the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder. The twelfth juror responded no to the same question. Thus, seven jurors indicated that the jury agreed on first-degree murder, which could only mean that the jury had agreed that Phillips was not guilty of that crime, but five jurors indicated that the jury was deadlocked. However, those five jurors indicated that they were deadlocked immediately after being told that "deadlocked" meant they could not agree on a verdict . Because the only verdict form offered to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Paul
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • May 28, 2020
    ...a mistrial based on manifest necessity due to jury deadlock without creating a "clear record[,]" State v. Phillips , 2017-NMSC-019, ¶ 16, 396 P.3d 153, as to whether the jury was deadlocked on the greater offense of homicide by vehicle, NMSA 1978, § 66-8-101 (2004), or on the lesser include......
  • State v. Lymon
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • May 27, 2021
    ...initial vote," id. ¶ 52, and "a snapshot of the jury's thinking partway through deliberations," State v. Phillips , 2017-NMSC-019, ¶ 18, 396 P.3d 153 (referring to a note sent from the jury to the trial court indicating a possible deadlock). "[A] verdict is not final until it is ‘rendered b......
  • State v. Lewis, S-1-SC-36428
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 1, 2018
    ...... See State v. Phillips , 2017-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 1, 14, 396 P.3d 153 ; State v. Wardlow , 1981-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 12-13, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527. "A trial court abuses its ......
  • State v. Aguilar
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • October 7, 2019
    ...Id .{50} The first three sections of Defendant’s double jeopardy argument rely upon Rule 5-611 NMRA and State v. Phillips , 2017-NMSC-019, 396 P.3d 153. Neither Rule 5-611 nor Phillips , however, are suitable to the facts before us.{51} Rule 5-611(A) requires that a verdict "shall be return......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT