State v. Fennell
431 Md. 500
Md.2013Background
- Fennell faced four counts: first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.
- A jury verdict sheet showed unanimous acquittal on counts 1, 2, and 4, with deadlock on counts 3 and the lesser included offense, second degree assault.
- The judge instructed continued deliberations, then declared a mistrial when progress stalled.
- Fennell moved to bar retrial on the counts with prior acquittals; the circuit court barred retrial on counts 1, 2, and 4, which the Court of Special Appeals reversed.
- The Court granted certiorari to decide whether retrial on those counts was barred by double jeopardy and whether partial verdicts could have been entered under Maryland law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declared mistrial was manifestly necessary. | Fennell argued manifest necessity existed due to deadlock. | State argued discretion allowed mistrial without specific steps. | Retrial on counts 1, 2, and 4 barred; failure to explore partial verdicts violated manifest necessity standards. |
| Role of Maryland Rule 4-327(d) in partial verdicts. | Fennell contended partial verdict should have been entered for agreed counts. | State argued partial verdict not required if no request or indication from jury. | Trial court erred by not inquiring into status of unanimity for agreed counts before mistrial. |
| Preservation and scope of review for double jeopardy challenge. | Motion to bar retrial was properly raised post-status conference. | State argued issue not preserved due to lack of objection. | Issue preserved; appellate review appropriate under collateral order doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. State, 395 Md. 73 (Md. 2006) (manifest necessity requires considering reasonable alternatives to mistrial)
- Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044 (U.S. 2012) (no automatic manifest-necessity rule; partial-verdict entry not required in all cases)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (U.S. 1824) (mistrial allowed under urgent circumstances, with great caution)
- Cornish v. State, 272 Md. 312 (Md. 1974) (manifest necessity requires exploring reasonable alternatives)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (U.S. 2010) (trial court's discretion in declaring mistrial; no mechanical steps required)
- Washington v. State, 434 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1978) (deadlock and manifest necessity standards emphasize discretion)
- Caldwell v. State, 164 Md.App. 612 (Md. 2005) (partial-verdict considerations and abuse of discretion)