State v. Sergio Bocanegra
13-14-00611-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Sergio Bocanegra was tried for DWI; jury empaneled after voir dire in which Juror Mendoza disclosed two prior DWI convictions orally to the State.
- Neither party challenged Mendoza for cause during voir dire, nor did either use a peremptory strike; Mendoza was seated as juror number 15.
- The next morning the State claimed Mendoza had not been truthful on his written juror questionnaire and asked the court to remove him for bias; the defense initially agreed to proceed with a five-member jury.
- The trial court found bias and declared a mistrial, after the State withdrew its willingness to proceed with only five jurors and asked the court to find manifest necessity.
- Bocanegra moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court granted the dismissal and the State appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held the State failed to show manifest necessity or actual bias and that the trial court erred in excusing Mendoza without inquiry, so double jeopardy barred retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest necessity justified mistrial after juror removal | State: juror was biased for not fully disclosing criminal history; excusal and mistrial were necessary | Bocanegra: juror had disclosed DWIs at voir dire; State forfeited challenge by not moving for cause then; less drastic alternative (proceed with five) existed | No. Court held no manifest necessity; excusal was improper without inquiry and less drastic alternatives existed |
| Whether dismissal on double jeopardy grounds was required | State: even if mistrial granted, retrial permitted because mistrial was manifestly necessary | Bocanegra: jeopardy attached and retrial barred because mistrial lacked manifest necessity and State rejected proceeding with five | Yes. Court affirmed dismissal: double jeopardy barred retrial because State failed to meet burden of manifest necessity |
| Whether juror removal was properly grounded in bias or disability | State: juror lied on questionnaire and was biased (appropriate to remove) | Bocanegra: juror disclosed convictions during voir dire; State should have challenged then; removal after empanelment required proof of actual bias and inquiry | Removal was improper. Court found no evidence of actual bias and trial court failed to question juror before excusal |
| Whether Texas law requires mutual agreement to proceed with fewer than six jurors | State: raises statutory/constitutional right to jury trial of six; argues court needed State's consent to go with five | Bocanegra: defendant had agreed to proceed with five; State’s refusal should not allow mistrial without manifest necessity | Not decided. Court found resolution of this statutory issue unnecessary to disposition and did not rule on it |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierson v. State, 426 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App.) (double jeopardy standard and burden-shifting on manifest necessity)
- Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. Crim. App.) (manifest necessity requires extraordinary circumstances and consideration of less drastic alternatives)
- Hill v. State, 90 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limits on granting mistrial when less drastic alternatives are available)
- Webb v. State, 232 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. Crim. App.) (forfeiture of challenge for cause if not timely made; abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial rulings)
- Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for proving juror bias and requirement to explain law and inquire whether juror can follow it)