Honester v. the State, 336 Ga. App. 166

Honester was tried on a felony obstruction charge; after ~3 hours of jury deliberation the jury sent a note saying they could not agree. Both sides initially requested an Allen charge.
The trial judge asked the jury two questions over defense objection: (1) the numerical division and (2) whether further deliberations were likely; the jury responded 11–1 for acquittal and that further deliberations would not produce unanimity. The judge also asked whether any juror was refusing to deliberate; jury answered no.
The State withdrew its request for an Allen charge after learning the 11–1 split; defense renewed its request. The judge refused to give an Allen charge, citing concern about coercing the lone guilty vote, and sua sponte declared a mistrial over Honester’s objection.
Honester was retried five days later before a different jury and was convicted. He moved for a plea in bar asserting double jeopardy because the mistrial was improperly declared. Following prior appellate proceedings (Honester I), the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity.
The trial court denied the plea in bar in a summary order; on appeal the Court of Appeals concluded the mistrial was improperly declared and reversed, directing that the plea in bar be granted.

Issue	Honester's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should have given an Allen charge instead of declaring mistrial	Trial court should have instructed jury to continue deliberations (Allen charge) rather than end trial	Trial court reasonably declined Allen charge given jurors’ statements and concern about coercion	Court held judge abused discretion by refusing Allen charge and declaring mistrial; further deliberations were appropriate
Whether mistrial declared over objection was supported by manifest necessity	No manifest necessity existed; mistrial thus barred retrial (plea in bar)	Mistrial was justified given jury impasse and judge’s concern about coercion	Court held no manifest necessity shown and mistrial was improper; plea in bar required
Whether the trial court erred by asking the nature of the jury’s numerical division (guilt vs. innocence)	That inquiry was improper and prejudicial; defense objected	State conceded the inquiry as to nature of split was improper	Court held asking the nature of the split (guilt/acquittal) was improper and the judge improperly relied on it
Whether the trial court adequately weighed defendant’s rights before declaring mistrial	Trial court failed to weigh defendant’s right to have trial completed by the tribunal	Judge considered juror pressure concerns and difficult evidence as justification	Court held judge failed to balance defendant’s rights against public interest; abused discretion

Honester v. State, 329 Ga. App. 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (prior appellate opinion in same case discussing trial events and legal issues)
Gibson v. State, 272 Ga. 801 (Ga. 2000) (giving pattern Allen charge after an 11–1 split is not per se coercive)
Sears v. State, 270 Ga. 834 (Ga. 1999) (trial court not bound by jury’s claim of deadlock; judge must determine whether further deliberations are proper)
Smith v. State, 263 Ga. 782 (Ga. 1994) (double jeopardy attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn; mistrial over objection requires manifest necessity)
United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (U.S. 1824) (foundational precedent for manifest necessity doctrine permitting mistrial in limited circumstances)
Harvey v. State, 296 Ga. 823 (Ga. 2015) (‘manifest necessity’ requires a high degree of necessity; trial court must consider alternatives before declaring mistrial)