Slip Opinion
Neb. Ct. App.2018Background
- James S. Price was charged with aiding and abetting robbery and aiding and abetting first-degree assault based on events of October 3, 2014.
- After the close of evidence, the jury deliberated, sent a note after ~6 hours saying it had difficulty reaching unanimity, and the court gave additional instructions to continue deliberating.
- After a couple more hours (over 8 hours total), the jury reported it remained deadlocked and stated they had reviewed instructions and evidence "multiple times."
- The presiding juror told the court the jury was "hopelessly deadlocked," and the court refused Price’s request to poll jurors individually and declared a mistrial over Price’s objection.
- Price filed a plea in bar arguing retrial would violate double jeopardy, due process, and his right to a fair trial; the district court overruled the plea, finding a "manifest necessity" for mistrial.
- Price appealed the denial of the plea in bar; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial and retrial is not barred.
Issues
| Issue | Price's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have polled jurors individually when jury reported deadlock | Poll jurors to determine if deadlock was on all counts or if some counts had unanimous acquittals | No statutory or constitutional right to individual polling where jury foreperson reports deadlocked; better practice but not required | Court affirmed trial court could rely on foreperson and decline polling; no entitlement to poll as matter of law |
| Whether retrial after mistrial declared over Price's objection violates Double Jeopardy | Mistrial was premature; jury not so exhausted that further deliberation (e.g., next day) wouldn’t yield a verdict — retrial barred | Mistrial declared for manifest necessity due to jurors' statement and trial court’s reasonable conclusion of deadlock | Court held jury’s inability to reach verdict constituted manifest necessity; retrial not barred |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in declaring mistrial | Declaring mistrial after ~8 hours deliberation was unreasonable compared to cases with longer deliberations | Trial judge reasonably considered jury’s statements, length of deliberation, follow-up instruction, and presiding juror’s representation | No abuse of discretion; factors supported mistrial declaration |
| Whether plea in bar presented a final appealable order | Price treated jury-poll refusal as standalone error | State argued only plea in bar order is final and appealable; other trial errors not yet final | Court addressed polling issue only as relevant to plea in bar; affirmed denial of plea in bar |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 278 Neb. 841, 774 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. 2009) (trial judge’s finding of deadlocked jury is classic basis for mistrial; accorded great deference)
- State v. Combs, 297 Neb. 422, 900 N.W.2d 473 (Neb. 2017) (better practice to inquire whether jury is deadlocked on every count before granting mistrial; does not create absolute right to poll)
- State v. Bostwick, 222 Neb. 631, 385 N.W.2d 906 (Neb. 1986) (review of record-supported deadlock after extensive deliberations; no fixed time rule required)