345 P.3d 116
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hansen was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; trial was bifurcated to decide guilt and then dangerousness.
- Jury returned verdict forms showing: guilty of aggravated assault (announced in court) and not guilty of the lesser included offense, simple assault.
- The court announced only the guilty verdict in open court, polled jurors, and no juror dissented on the announced verdict.
- After a later dangerousness finding, the court noticed the contradictory not-guilty form; the foreperson said she was confused about the two sheets.
- Defense moved for and the court declared a mistrial over the state’s objection; the state appealed the mistrial order and the court addressed whether the state may appeal and whether the mistrial was proper.
- The court held the state lacks a statutory right to appeal an order granting a mistrial but, exercising special-action jurisdiction, affirmed the trial court’s mistrial order because the verdict was ambiguous and not properly accepted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state may appeal the trial court’s mistrial order | § 13-4032(2) permits state appeals from orders granting a new trial; a mistrial is equivalent | Mistrial is not the same as an order granting a new trial; appeal right is limited | State has no statutory right to appeal a mistrial under § 13-4032(2) (court exercised special-action jurisdiction instead) |
| Whether the jury returned a final, enforceable verdict despite contradictory forms | The guilty verdict announced and the poll show the jury intended to convict; court should accept that verdict | The simultaneous not-guilty on the lesser offense made the verdict ambiguous; court could not accept it without clarification | Ambiguous verdicts (guilty and not guilty on same count/lesser-included) cannot be accepted; court properly declared a mistrial (affirmed) |
| Proper remedy when jury returns mutually contradictory/ambiguous verdicts | Court should give effect to verdict announced in open court if overall record shows intent to convict | Court should reinstruct or poll jurors further; if ambiguity persists, declare mistrial | Trial courts should attempt to clarify (reinstruct/resume deliberations); if ambiguity remains, mistrial is an available, non-reversible remedy in this case |
| Whether inconsistent verdict doctrine compels acceptance of these forms | Inconsistent verdicts are often upheld (jury lenity/nullification); court should not probe deliberations | Contradictory verdicts on the same count are impossible to give effect to and require remedial action | Inconsistent verdict doctrine does not apply to internally contradictory verdicts on the same count or greater/lesser-included offenses; remedial action required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 887 P.2d 592 (App. 1994) (criteria for a final verdict)
- State v. Webb, 186 Ariz. 560, 925 P.2d 701 (App. 1996) (treatment of inconsistent verdicts)
- State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 792 P.2d 741 (1990) (strict construction of state’s appeal rights)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (limits on inquiring into jury deliberations; rationale for accepting inconsistent verdicts)
- State v. Rich, 184 Ariz. 179, 907 P.2d 1382 (1995) (requiring action when jury convicts of greater and acquits of lesser included offense)
- United States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1979) (verdict must be certain, unqualified, and unambiguous)