State v. Phillips, 396 P.3d 153

Defendant Clive Phillips was tried on Count 1 which charged first-degree premeditated murder, with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses.
The jury was given only guilty verdict forms for each offense and a single not-guilty form that acquitted on the entire Count 1 (no separate not-guilty forms for each included offense).
After several days, the jury sent notes indicating disagreement; ultimately the jury reported it was "hung" on Count 1 and would not reach a verdict.
The court conducted a jury poll asking whether jurors were "deadlocked on the greater offense of first-degree murder," producing mixed answers: seven jurors answered in a way consistent with acquittal of first-degree murder, and five answered that they were deadlocked.
The district court declared a mistrial as to all offenses in Count 1 and reserved the State’s right to retry all offenses; Phillips moved to dismiss first- and second-degree murder counts on double jeopardy grounds.
The Supreme Court held the polling responses were ambiguous, the trial court should have clarified the jury’s answers (or otherwise created a clear record), and therefore retrial is barred for first- and second-degree murder; only voluntary manslaughter remains retryable.

Issue	State's Argument	Phillips' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly determined the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder based on the poll	Poll showed jurors were split and thus the jury was hung on first-degree murder; mistrial on the count was justified	Poll responses were ambiguous and the court failed to clarify whether jurors had acquitted or were deadlocked as to each included offense, violating double jeopardy protections	Court held the poll was ambiguous, trial court abused discretion by not clarifying; retrial on first- and second-degree murder barred; only manslaughter may be retried

State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (discretion review of mistrial necessity) (court relied on Wardlow’s standard regarding abuse of discretion in mistrial decisions)
State v. Holloway, 106 N.M. 161, 740 P.2d 711 (jury poll ambiguity must be explored; court must clarify juror uncertainty)
State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146 (when record is unclear which included offenses jury agreed on, doubts resolved for defendant and retrial barred on unclear offenses)
State v. Garcia, 137 N.M. 315, 110 P.3d 531 (noting logical inconsistency of acquittal on lesser while hung on greater)
Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888 (9th Cir.) (interim jury room votes are not final; the poll in open court controls)