Ex Parte Perusquia, 336 S.W.3d 270

Bernadette Perusquia was indicted for her husband’s murder in 2003 and claimed self-defense based on alleged battered-wife syndrome.
A one-week jury trial in 2006 heard extensive testimony and exhibits, including expert testimony on battered woman’s syndrome and PTSD.
During deliberations, the jury reported being at a standstill after eight hours; the court issued an Allen charge over defense objections.
Later that evening, the court sua sponte questioned the jury about continuing deliberations and ultimately declared a mistrial after they reported being unable to reach a verdict.
Perusquia was re-indicted in 2009 for the same offense; she sought habeas corpus relief to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds.
The trial court denied the habeas petition; Perusquia appealed challenging the mistrial ruling and its impact on double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mistrial was properly declared for manifest necessity.	Perusquia argues the mistrial was premature and violated double jeopardy.	The State contends the mistrial was warranted given the jury’s deadlock and the circumstances.	No abuse of discretion; manifest necessity supported mistrial.

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (double jeopardy requires manifest necessity for mistrial when defendant objects)
Brown v. State, 907 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (limits on mistrial discretion; less drastic alternatives must be considered)
Husain v. State, 161 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005) (evaluate deliberation length, evidence, and court- jury communications)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to trial court factual findings in habeas review)
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) (jeopardy attaches when jury impaneled and sworn)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standard for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact)