State v. Sergio Bocanegra
13-14-00611-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 4, 2015Background
- Defendant Sergio Bocanegra was charged with misdemeanor DWI and tried in county court; a six-person jury was empaneled and sworn.
- After juror selection, a juror failed to disclose a prior DWI conviction discovered by background check; the juror was removed for misconduct/bias.
- The trial court considered proceeding with the remaining five jurors, but the State refused consent; the defense was willing to proceed with five.
- The trial court declared a mistrial based on a finding of manifest necessity and the case was reset for trial.
- The defense later moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the prosecution.
- The State appeals, arguing (1) both parties must agree to a reduced (five-person) misdemeanor jury, (2) manifest necessity supported the mistrial, and (3) dismissal on double jeopardy was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether both parties must agree to a reduced (five-person) jury in a misdemeanor trial | State: Statute and precedent require mutual agreement to go forward with fewer than six jurors | Defense: Defendant may waive six-person jury and proceed with five without State consent | Court of appeals brief: State argues mutual agreement required; trial court had granted dismissal — State seeks reversal (appeal pending) |
| Whether manifest necessity supported declaring a mistrial after juror removal | State: Juror misconduct (failure to disclose prior DWI) rendered removal necessary; trial court explored less drastic alternatives and reasonably found manifest necessity | Defense: Objected to mistrial and preferred proceeding with five jurors | State: Trial court’s on-the-spot finding of manifest necessity was reasonable and should be upheld |
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy after the mistrial | State: Arizona v. Washington permits reprosecution where mistrial was declared for manifest necessity; dismissal was an abuse of discretion | Defense: Trial court concluded no manifest necessity justified reprosecution and dismissed on double jeopardy grounds | Trial court granted dismissal; State argues that was outside the zone of reasonable disagreement and should be reversed |
| Standard of review for trial court’s double jeopardy dismissal | State: Abuse of discretion; trial court’s contemporaneous mistrial decision deserves deference | Defense: Trial court’s habeas/double jeopardy ruling also reviewed for abuse of discretion | State contends the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (reprosecution allowed when mistrial declared for manifest necessity)
- Ex Parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defendant may waive six-person misdemeanor jury only if trial court and State consent)
- Ex Parte Rodriguez, 366 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court’s mistrial determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; manifest necessity must be apparent on the record)
- Hatch v. State, 958 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (parties may agree to proceed with fewer jurors in district court; waiver principles)
- Brown v. State, 907 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (trial court must consider less drastic alternatives before declaring mistrial)
- United States v. Fisher, 624 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standards for mistrial reviewed with varying deference depending on circumstances)