Roberson, Ex Parte Byrias
PD-0308-15
| Tex. App. | May 4, 2015Background
- Investigator Cavinder spoke with a woman outside the courtroom who he believed to be a juror from voir dire but later corrected to confirm she was not Ms. Steele.
- The exchange occurred with Juror Vale, who later testified that Cavinder discussed matters unrelated to the trial, including game warden school.
- Vale confirmed she was a juror; Cavinder testified he did not discuss the case with her, and the court stopped the conversation when he realized she might be a juror.
- Vale was questioned the next day; she was nervous and recalled that Cavinder made a comment about being struck and then on, which pertained to the juror’s status rather than the case.
- The trial court granted a mistrial, finding Cavinder’s conduct to be an honest mistake and not intended to provoke a mistrial.
- On appeal, the Second Court of Appeals applied Wheeler factors and concluded the retrial did not violate double jeopardy, adopting the Lewis standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial when mistrial is granted. | Roberson argues mistrial was provoked by prosecutorial conduct. | State contends the conduct was not intended to provoke a mistrial; Lewis standard applies. | Retrial not barred; Lewis standard controls. |
| What standard governs whether prosecutorial conduct requires mistrial to bar retrial. | Roberson urges an older Bauder approach. | State urges Ex parte Lewis framework with Wheeler factors. | Lewis framework applied; Wheeler factors used for scrutiny. |
| Whether the Second Court of Appeals correctly applied the Wheeler factors. | Roberson challenges the credibility determinations and application of factors. | State argues correct application of Wheeler and deference to trial court credibility findings. | Second Court of Appeals correctly applied Wheeler. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (retrial barred only when conduct intended to provoke mistrial)
- Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (non-exhaustive factors for evaluating prosecutorial conduct impact)
- Bauder v. State, 921 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (older standard associating mistrial with possible retrial implications)
- Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (pre-Lewis authorities on double jeopardy and mistrial)
- Ex parte Roberson, 455 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015) (Fort Worth court applying Lewis in double jeopardy context)