Tallon Westlake v. State of Alaska, A14462

Westlake was charged with murdering his father and tampering with evidence after his father was found beaten to death in Westlake's residence. 1
The State relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including blood, bleach-cleaning, and the absence of forced entry, while Westlake argued an unknown assailant committed the killing. 2
Because Westlake's intoxication could negate intent, the jury was instructed on voluntary intoxication, but the instruction was later recognized as ambiguous. 3
During deliberations, the jury repeatedly asked questions showing confusion about the homicide counts, lesser offenses, and the effect of intoxication on intent. 4
The court did not clarify the jury's legal confusion or give a Fields instruction before polling jurors and declaring a mistrial over Westlake's objection. 5
Westlake moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing no manifest necessity supported the mistrial, and the superior court denied the motion. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there manifest necessity for mistrial? 7	Westlake said the jury was confused, not hopelessly deadlocked.	State said the jury was hung and further deliberation would not help.	No; mistrial was not manifestly necessary. 8
Did the court need to clarify jury-law confusion first? 9	Westlake argued the court ignored clear confusion and unanswered questions.	State said the jury had resolved its questions on its own.	Yes; the court should have clarified the confusion or asked if more instruction would help. 10
Could the jury still reach verdicts if instructed further? 11	Westlake said corrected instructions could have produced acquittals or verdicts on remaining counts.	State said the deadlock was factual, so more instruction would not matter.	Yes; further instruction could still have affected verdicts. 12
Who bears the burden to show manifest necessity? 13	Westlake said the State had to justify the mistrial record.	State relied on the court's hung-jury determination.	The State bears the burden. 14

Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (prosecutor bears the heavy burden to justify a mistrial over defendant objection 15)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (U.S. 1957) (double jeopardy protects against repeated prosecutions for the same offense 16)
United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1971) (mistrial over objection requires urgent, plainly necessary circumstances 17)
Koehler v. State, 519 P.2d 442 (Alaska 1974) (hung jury requires no prospect of agreement and record must support that finding 18)
Cross v. State, 813 P.2d 691 (Alaska App. 1991) (trial court must make further inquiry and consider less drastic alternatives before mistrial 19)
Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270 (Alaska App. 1991) (court abuses discretion by refusing to resolve juror confusion or repoll for partial verdict potential 20)
Des Jardins v. State, 551 P.2d 181 (Alaska 1976) (when a jury is confused on law, the judge must give clear guidance 21)
Fields v. State, 487 P.2d 831 (Alaska 1971) (approves supplemental instruction encouraging deadlocked jurors to continue deliberating 22)