Arrington v. State, 77 So. 3d 542

Arrington was convicted of manslaughter in Shasta Smith's death and sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty years without parole.
The killing occurred at a September 21, 2008 birthday party; witnesses disputed whether Shasta had a knife and whether Arrington acted with malice.
At Arrington's first trial (2009), the jury deadlocked; a mistrial was declared. At the second trial (2010), he was convicted of manslaughter after a brief deliberation.
During sentencing, the State proved eleven Florida felonies for habitual-offender purposes, yielding a twenty-year term without parole.
Arrington appealed raising: (1) double jeopardy based on jury instructions, (2) denial of a mistrial during voir dire, and (3) denial of JNOV/new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy violation	First trial refused manslaughter instruction; duplicate jeopardy claimed violated.	No actual acquittal on the merits; mistrial permits retrial; record insufficient to review.	No double jeopardy violation; no merited record to review; retrial properly allowed.
Mistrial during voir dire	Judge should have sua sponte declared mistrial or specially voir dired for remarks about counsel.	Outburst outside jurors' hearing and judge's curative admonitions prevented prejudice; no mistrial required.	No reversible error; trial judge acted within discretion; no mistrial declared.
JNOV/new trial denial	Court should have directed verdict of acquittal or granted JNOV/new trial due to insufficiency/weight of evidence.	Evidence supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt; weight of the evidence did not mandate a new trial.	Conviction supported; no basis for JNOV or new trial; record shows sufficient evidence.

Watts v. State, 492 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1986) (mistrial requires manifest necessity when double jeopardy concerns arise)
Nichols v. Tubb, 609 So.2d 377 (Miss. 1992) (preserve and designate record on appeal for instructions)
Robinson v. State, 345 So.2d 1044 (Miss. 1977) (presumption of correctness of trial court decisions)
Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246 (Miss. 1996) (juror impartiality presumed; decision reviewed for clear error)
Payne v. State, 462 So.2d 902 (Miss. 1984) (presumption juries follow court instructions)
State v. Fleming, 726 So.2d 113 (Miss. 1998) (double-jeopardy requires actual acquittal or conviction on merits)
Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173 (Miss. 1990) (trial court better positioned to determine prejudicial effect of remarks)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (new trial standard based on weight of evidence; equitable relief rare)
Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss. 1968) (treatment of sufficiency of evidence standard)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68 (Miss. 1985) (standard for sufficiency of evidence and appellate review)