Ray v. Commonwealth
463 Mass. 1
| Mass. | 2012Background
- defendant indicted on two prostitution-derived-support charges under G. L. c. 272, § 7;
- trial began Feb. 1, 2012; Commonwealth presented its case the next day;
- jury deliberated totaling about one day and four and a half hours across two sessions;
- jury submitted multiple notes and then stated they were hopelessly deadlocked;
- judge declared mistrial over defendant’s objection after considering Tuey–Rodriquez alternatives;
- mistrial decision upheld on manifest necessity, defendant sought double jeopardy relief which was denied;
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mistrial was justified by manifest necessity | Commonwealth argues manifest necessity due to deadlock | Lenk contends lack of manifest necessity; coercion risks from failure to use Tuey-Rodriquez | Yes, mistrial justified by manifest necessity; retrial permitted |
| Whether a Tuey-Rodriquez instruction was mandatory before declaring a mistrial | Commonwealth supports using Tuey-Rodriquez unless not warranted | Lenk argues instruction should have been given upon request | Not mandatory; discretionary in the judge’s discretion |
| Whether the judge abused discretion in declaring mistrial | Commonwealth asserts judge properly weighed factors and alternatives | Lenk claims insufficiency of factors or improper consideration | No abuse of discretion; decision upheld |
| Whether failure to poll jurors before declaring mistrial affected the result | Commonwealth notes no polling required in this jurisdiction | Lenk argues polling could inform deliberations | Not a controlling factor; decision stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (mistrial due to inability to reach verdict; manifest necessity standard)
- Thames v. Commonwealth, 365 Mass. 477 (Mass. 1974) (hung jury as prototypical manifest necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Steward, 396 Mass. 76 (Mass. 1985) (guidance on double jeopardy after mistrial; factors and defense hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Nicoll, 452 Mass. 816 (Mass. 2008) (two guiding principles: opportunity to be heard and consideration of alternatives)
- United States v. Razmilovic, 507 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2007) (factors for determining reasonableness of pre-mistrial actions)
- Commonwealth v. Semedo, 456 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2010) (consideration of jury deliberations and related procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Rollins, 354 Mass. 630 (Mass. 1968) (discretion to provide Tuey-Rodriquez instruction; not mandatory in all cases)
- Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044 (S. Ct. 2012) (regarding decisions to declare mistrial and jury coercion risks)