State v. Puckett
| Decision Date | 16 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 1249,1249 |
| Citation | 377 P.2d 779,92 Ariz. 407 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Harmon S. PUCKETT, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Philip M. Haggerty, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellant.
Cordova, Goss & Mariscal, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal on behalf of the State of Arizona by the County Attorney of Maricopa County from the order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County quashing an information against Harmon S. Puckett, Jr., based on the ground that a subsequent trial would violate Article 2, § 10 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. by placing the defendant in double jeopardy.
The trial against Puckett was commenced on October 24, 1961, before Superior Court Judge Gordon Farley, the jury having been waived by the defendant. Witnesses were sworn and testimony was taken during the entire first day of the trial. On the following morning counsel for the State and for the defendant were invited into the judge's chambers, for a conference regarding an article which had appeared in the Arizona Republic, a daily newspaper of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. The proceedings held in chambers were not reported. Upon reconvening in open court the court made the following order:
'The Court has heretofore indicated to counsel that it feels the article which appeared in the morning paper compels the Court to declare a mistrial in this case, in the interest of judicial integrity, since the inference has been raised that any decision the Court might render would be in some way influenced by party affiliation; so I am at this time declaring a mistrial and reassigning it to the presiding Judge for reassignment.'
No objection was made by either the State or the defendant to the declaration of mistrial at the court's own volition. Subsequently a motion was filed by defendant to quash the information on the basis that the defendant had been placed in former jeopardy in violation of Article 2, § 10 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona. On December 5, 1961, an order was made and entered granting defendant's motion.
This Court has had the issue of former jeopardy before it on numerous occasions although not based upon a fact situation as here presented. The general rules of law in this area are well established. Jeopardy attaches after the proceedings in a criminal trial have commenced, and once attached, unless removed for some legal reason, the one in jeopardy cannot be again tried for the same offense. Application of Williams, 85 Ariz. 109, 333 P.2d 280 (1959); Westover v. State, 66 Ariz. 145, 185 P.2d 315 (1947). The prime issue thus becomes whether the reason given by the judge for declaring the mistrial was such a legal reason.
The State contends that the trial court conducting a criminal case without a jury has the power and right to declare a mistrial, and the duty to do so if within its discretion the ends of justice would be best served and that the integrity of the court would be damaged if the trial continued. Gori v. U. S., 367 U.S. 364, 81 S.Ct. 1523, 6 L.Ed.2d 901 (1961).
It is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Kelly
...Commonwealth v. Africa, 281 Pa.Super. 419, 422 A.2d 539 (1980) (same); State v. Pierce, 459 A.2d 148 (Me.1983) (same); State v. Puckett, 92 Ariz. 407, 377 P.2d 779 (1963) (same); cf., Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148, 12 S.Ct. 171, 35 L.Ed. 968 (1891) (mistrial necessary where member ......
-
Bade v. Drachman
...for recovery of taxes occasioned by any further misapplication of the law to the assessment of its property.' (Emphasis supplied.) (92 Ariz. 407, 377 P.2d 799) The reasoning of Southern Pacific in denying the recovery of taxes paid under protest is '* * * (T)he refund of taxes paid is by vi......
-
Drachman v. Jay
... ... Christian, Pima County Treasurer, and William Stanford, Warren Peterson and Thad Moore, as members of and constituting the State Tax Commission and State Board of Equalization of Arizona, Appellees. * ... No. 2 CA-CIV 259 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona ... Aug. 17, 1966 ... ...
-
District of Columbia v. Keyes
... ... Page 736 ... of the state ... " 15 92 Ariz. at 4.06, 377 P.2d at 778. Significantly, the court so held despite the fact that the taxpayer relied upon a statutory provision ... ...
-
CHAPTER 13 STATE MINERAL TAXATION: THE ARIZONA EXPERIENCE
...Thus the court felt justified, perhaps under notions of estoppel, in denying the plaintiff's demand for a refund. [138] Id. at 407, 377 P.2d at 779. [139] Id. at 403, 377 P.2d at 776. [140] Southern Pac. Co. v. Dewitt, 288 F. Supp. 570, 575 n.9 (D. Ariz. 1968). [141] Ch. 43 [1963] Ariz. Law......