State v. Sean Michael McGuire
01-14-01023-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 10, 2015Background
- Sean McGuire was indicted on two counts arising from a single death: Count I (felony murder based on DWI third offense) and Count II (intoxication manslaughter). Both counts were tried together.
- At the jury charge conference McGuire requested (and the trial court adopted) a charge that effectively allowed the jury to return only one guilty verdict (or an acquittal) among several alternative offenses rather than a separate verdict on each count. The State objected and asked for a separate guilty/not guilty verdict on each count under art. 37.07.
- The jury convicted McGuire of felony murder. No verdict was returned on Count II; the indictment for intoxication manslaughter remained pending.
- McGuire filed a pretrial habeas petition asserting Double Jeopardy because he had been convicted of murder while Count II remained pending; the trial court granted relief and dismissed Count II.
- The State appealed the dismissal, arguing (1) McGuire invited the error by insisting on a single-verdict structure contrary to art. 37.07, and (2) double jeopardy does not bar retrial because no verdict was rendered on Count II and the felony-murder judgment is not final while appeal is pending. The State offered to dismiss Count II if felony-murder conviction is ultimately affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McGuire) | Held (trial court at writ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Count II as barred by Double Jeopardy | Appellant: dismissal was error because McGuire invited the single-verdict charge (estoppel); art. 37.07 requires separate verdicts; no final jeopardy attached to Count II so retrial is permissible | McGuire: conviction on felony murder plus pending intoxication-manslaughter charge amounts to double jeopardy; dismissal required | Trial court granted habeas relief and dismissed Count II (State appeals) |
| Whether a party may invite an error and later rely on double jeopardy to obtain dismissal | State: a party cannot take advantage of an error it induced (invited error/estoppel should apply) | McGuire: (implicit) Double Jeopardy protection is independent and protects against being tried/convicted twice for the same death | Trial court accepted Double Jeopardy claim despite State’s invited-error argument |
| Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial when no verdict was returned on a count tried with another count that resulted in conviction | State: Double Jeopardy protects against multiple trials/punishments, not multiple convictions in a single trial; where no verdict is returned (like a hung jury) a retrial is not barred | McGuire: conviction on one theory of death should prevent prosecution on the alternative theory | Trial court treated the pendency of Count II as triggering Double Jeopardy and dismissed it; State asserts this was error |
| Whether potential multiple punishments can be avoided when both counts are presented and jury convicts on both | State: any double-punishment risk can be resolved on appeal by retaining only the most serious offense (most-serious-offense test from Bigon) or dismissing lesser if convictions duplicate punishment | McGuire: overlapping convictions punish the same death; dismissal protects against multiple punishments now | Trial court dismissed Count II; State urges appellate reinstatement and notes it would dismiss Count II if felony-murder conviction is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1977) (double jeopardy protections following conviction vs. appeal)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple prosecutions/punishments for same offense)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (three types of double jeopardy protections)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (most-serious-offense test to resolve duplicative convictions/punishments for a single death)
- Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussion of double jeopardy principles)
- Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044 (U.S. 2012) (where no jury verdict on an offense, no final resolution for double jeopardy purposes)
- Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (invited-error doctrine; a party may not profit from an error it induced)
- Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (applying estoppel/invited-error to prevent complaint about rights waived or invited at trial)