Ex Parte Garza
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 593
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Misdemeanor DWI trial began with jurors empaneled; one juror became ill after August 13, 2007, delaying trial.
- Trial court twice reset; after renewed delay, the court declared a mistrial over defense objection due to manifest necessity.
- Appellant moved for habeas relief alleging double jeopardy; convicting court denied, court of appeals reversed and remanded.
- Appellant argued the court should have explored proceeding with five jurors as a less drastic alternative.
- State urged that trial court had discretion to declare mistrial and that proceeding with five jurors was not constitutionally mandated or supported by county-law provisions.
- Texas law allows waivers of jury size in certain contexts; the question is whether a defendant may waive a six-member requirement in county court and whether manifest necessity existed under the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest necessity required exploring a five-juror option before mistrial. | Garza argues the court failed to consider going forward with five jurors. | Garza asserts waiver of six-member jury and less drastic alternatives were available. | Manifest necessity not shown; court violated obligation to consider less drastic option. |
| Whether state law permits waiver of a full six-member jury in county court. | Garza contends waiver is implicit in longstanding Texas practice. | State argues no statutory allowance for fewer than six. | Implicit waiver permissible; county court may proceed with fewer than six if defendant consents. |
| Whether the trial court had discretion to grant a mistrial sua sponte. | Garza contends court abused discretion by not exploring alternatives to mistrial. | State asserts discretion to declare mistrial for manifest necessity. | Court abused discretion; must explore alternatives before declaring mistrial. |
| Must the record show consent to proceed with five jurors for a valid waiver? | Garza indicated willingness to proceed with five jurors; defense counsel raised alternative. | State and court failed to confirm explicit waiver. | Waiver could be inferred; failure to seek or confirm consent does not defeat waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978) (Six-member jury required by Sixth Amendment; smaller juries unreliable)
- Hill v. State, 90 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Addresses need to consider less drastic alternatives to mistrial; statutory context varies by article)
- Ex parte Fierro, 79 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Court required exploring less drastic alternatives before mistrial when a juror is lost)
- Buck v. State, 599 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (Waiver of jury rights in certain cases; five-member jury permissible with waiver)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930) (Right to waive jury size may be recognized; public policy favors waiver of nominal rights)