310 P.3d 52
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Espinoza was charged with aggravated robbery in 2010.
- During trial, the jury could consider theft of a means of transportation as a lesser-included offense if not guilty of aggravated robbery.
- While deliberating, jurors asked how to proceed if hung and the court allowed consideration of the lesser offense.
- The jury left the aggravated robbery verdict blank and found Espinoza guilty of theft of a means of transportation.
- Espinoza challenged the conviction on the basis that theft of a means of transportation was not a proper lesser-included offense; the higher court vacated the conviction and sentence.
- After mandate issued, Espinoza moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court granted the motion; the State appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after dismissal without verdict. | State argues jeopardy terminated; due to improper lesser offense conviction. | Espinoza argues continued jeopardy and manifest necessity required retrial. | Jeopardy terminated; retrial barred; affirm dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (jeopardy attaches when trial begins; no continued jeopardy after improper outcomes?)
- Washington v. United States, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (manifest necessity required for continuing jeopardy; high degree of deadlock.)
- LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437 (1996) (leBlanc rule on lesser-included offenses and acquittal.)
- Gusler v. Wilkinson, 199 Ariz. 391 (2001) (true deadlock required to show manifest necessity.)
- Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (2006) (LeBlanc instruction context; reasonable efforts vs. deadlock.)
- Peak v. Acuña, 203 Ariz. 83 (2002) (conviction on improper lesser offense; retrial implications.)
- Lemke v. Rayes, 213 Ariz. 232 (2006) (assumed discussion on retrial and double jeopardy.)
- Brazzel v. Washington, 491 F.3d 976 (2007) (distinguishes genuine deadlock vs. instruction-induced acquittal.)