State v. Pistole, 1 CA-CR 16-0011

Defendant William George Pistole was indicted for aggravated DUI (class 4 felony); three-day trial set to begin Sept. 2, 2015.
Trial court, over the prosecutor’s objection, announced it would give a Willits instruction based on state’s failure to preserve a jail video of the blood draw; trial recessed to allow the Court of Appeals to address a special action petition filed by the state.
Defense counsel informed the court she would begin a public defender job Sept. 14; the Yavapai County Public Defender’s Office initially offered screening but later concluded screening was insufficient and conflicts required appointing new counsel.
On Sept. 28, after the Court of Appeals stayed the Willits instruction and the Public Defender refused screening, defense counsel moved to withdraw; the court granted withdrawal and sua sponte declared a mistrial because Pistole could not consult independent counsel about waiving the conflict.
Lower court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding the court’s own errors (including the initial Willits ruling and calendar management) meant there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial; the state appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after sua sponte mistrial declared because of counsel conflict and delay from state’s special action	State: mistrial was supported by manifest necessity; retrial permissible because prosecutor did not provoke mistrial and alternatives were explored	Pistole: mistrial resulted from prosecution’s tactical stay and caused loss of counsel; retrial barred by double jeopardy	Court: manifest necessity existed; trial court abused discretion in dismissing with prejudice—vacated dismissal and remanded
Whether trial court’s procedural errors (Willits instruction, calendar management, failure to appoint advisory counsel) required dismissal with prejudice	State: court’s errors did not remove manifest necessity nor implicate double jeopardy; court reasonably explored alternatives	Pistole: court’s own errors deprived him of the right to a completed trial by the same tribunal, warranting dismissal	Court: errors noted but were not the kind that implicate double jeopardy; dismissal with prejudice was erroneous

State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (Ariz. 1964) (instructions when prosecution fails to preserve evidence)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (standard of "manifest necessity" for mistrial and double jeopardy analysis)
United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (trial complexity and necessity that judge scrupulously exercise discretion before declaring mistrial)
Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949) (public interest can justify overriding defendant’s interest in single tribunal)
McLaughlin v. Fahringer, 150 Ariz. 274, 723 P.2d 92 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (abuse-of-discretion review for mistrial decisions)
State v. Aguilar, 217 Ariz. 235, 172 P.3d 423 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (review standard for manifest necessity)
State v. Green, 200 Ariz. 496, 29 P.3d 271 (Ariz. 2001) (abuse of discretion defined as legal error or lack of substantial evidence)