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 did not return a verdict on Count 1.
The jury instructions required sequential consideration: first-degree, then second-degree, then manslaughter, and a not-guilty finding for any offense had to be unanimous.
The jury received only four verdict forms for Count 1: guilty for each of the three offenses and a single form acquitting Count 1 in its entirety (no separate not-guilty forms for each offense).
After multi-day deliberations the jury reported it was “hung.” At a court poll, 7 jurors answered that the jury had unanimously agreed (interpretable as acquittal) on first-degree murder, while 5 jurors answered that the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder — creating an ambiguous record.
The trial court declared a mistrial on Count 1 and reserved the State’s right to retry all three offenses; Phillips moved to dismiss the first- and second-degree murder charges on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion; the Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed as to first- and second-degree murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly determined the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder after the jury poll	State: jurors’ split answers showed deadlock on first-degree murder, justifying mistrial and retrial on all included offenses	Phillips: jurors’ responses were ambiguous; court failed to establish on the record whether jurors had unanimously acquitted or were deadlocked on each included offense, so retrial is barred by double jeopardy except for the lowest offense	Court: polling answers were ambiguous; court abused discretion by not clarifying; first- and second-degree murder must be dismissed, retrial allowed only on voluntary manslaughter

State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585 (trial court’s determination of impossibility to reach a verdict reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Holloway, 106 N.M. 161 (trial court must explore juror uncertainty on unanimity during a poll)
State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608 (where record is silent as to which included offenses were agreed upon, doubt resolved for defendant; greater offenses dismissed)
State v. Garcia, 137 N.M. 315 (logical inconsistency in declaring deadlock on greater offense while acquitting on lesser included offense)
Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888 (preliminary jury room votes are not final; poll results control at discharge)