State v. PhillipsState v. Phillips
CHAVEZ, Justice.
{2} In this case, the jury announced that it was hung on Count 1, which required it to consider whether Defendant Clive Phillips was guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. The district court then polled the jurors. During the poll, seven jurors stated that the jury had unanimously agreed Phillips was not guilty of first-degree murder, but five jurors indicated the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that crime. The only verdict form given to the jury that exclusively referred to first-degree murder was the guilty verdict form, so there is no written record of whether the jury had acquitted Phillips of that crime or deadlocked during deliberations. The district court determined that the jury was hung on first-degree murder. We hold that the judge failed to clearly establish on the record whether the jury deadlocked on first-degree murder, and therefore Phillips can only be retried on the lowest offense in Count 1, which is voluntary manslaughter. We reverse the district court and remand to dismiss the first- and second-degree murder charges with prejudice.
BACKGROUND
{3} Phillips shot his former girlfriend and shot and killed his friend after discovering them in bed together at the home they all shared. The State prosecuted
{4} To resolve Count 1, the jury had the option of entering a verdict finding Phillips guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter, or a verdict finding him not guilty of all three crimes. Because second-degree murder is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of both first- and second-degree murder, the model jury instruction used in this case requires jurors to individually consider each greater offense before considering a lesser offense. See
{5} If the jurors unanimously determine that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed any one of the aforementioned crimes, their verdict must be that the defendant is not guilty of that crime.
{6} If the jurors cannot unanimously agree on any verdict for a count with lesser included offenses such as Count 1 in this case, the trial court must poll the jurors, beginning with the greatest offense, to determine whether they unanimously found the defendant not guilty of any individual offense within the count.
{7} The jurors in this case deliberated for three days. On the second day of deliberations, the jurors sent a note to the court indicating that some jurors believed
{8} On the third day, after approximately six additional hours of deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court reading: “What does it mean if we don‘t sign any of the papers on Count 1? We are hung.” Concerning Count 1, the jury only received four papers for signature. The first was a verdict, which read “We find the defendant guilty of first degree murder by a deliberate killing as charged in Count 1.” The second was a verdict, which read “We find the defendant guilty of second degree murder an included offense of Count 1.” The third was a verdict, which read “We find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter an included offense of Count 1.” The fourth and last was a verdict, which read “We find the defendant not guilty of Count 1.”
{9} Later that afternoon, the court called in the jury, and a juror informed the court
{10} The district court polled the jurors to “inquire whether the jury ha[d] truly deadlocked on the greater offense of first-degree murder.” As the court began its polling, the following colloquy ensued:
THE COURT: I need to ask each and every one of you the question as to whether you have truly deadlocked on the greater offense of first-degree murder. I will start with you, Mr. Ashe.
THE JUROR: So I don‘t understand how the—
THE COURT: Yes or no, whether you were deadlocked with regards to the greater offense of first-degree murder. You cannot reach a decision as to that charge?
THE JUROR: And the word “deadlock” meaning?
THE COURT: That you unanimously could not reach a decision with your fellow jurors as to that charge.
THE JUROR: I hate to say the wrong thing, but I believe we did
reach a decision, and we went down to the next charge; is that correct? THE COURT: So with regards to first-degree, you were not deadlocked with first-degree?
THE JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I‘m asking you, Mr. Ashe.
THE JUROR: No.
The second juror also indicated that the jury was not deadlocked. The third juror initially responded to the question of whether the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder with “I thought we were,” but eventually said no. The next three jurors also answered no.
{11} The seventh juror sought further clarification:
THE JUROR: Can I ask a question? I mean, deadlocked meaning we couldn‘t agree?
THE COURT: Correct. You could not arrive at a verdict.
THE JUROR: Then, yes, we were deadlocked.
The next four jurors also answered yes to indicate that the jury was deadlocked on first-degree murder. The twelfth juror responded no to the same question. Thus, seven jurors indicated that the jury agreed on first-degree murder, which could only mean that the jury had agreed that Phillips was not guilty of that crime, but five jurors
{12} Despite the jurors’ apparent inability to agree on whether they had disagreed, the district court declared that the jury was “split” and “in complete disagreement” on first-degree murder. Defense counsel astutely argued that the jurors’ conflicting answers indicated that they were confused about the question, and therefore she urged the court to clarify the jury‘s resolution of the first-degree murder charge. The court responded that it had asked a yes-or-no question and could not clarify the jurors’ responses any further, then declared a mistrial and reserved the State‘s right to retry
{13} Phillips brought a motion to dismiss the first- and second-degree murder charges on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the district court had not established a clear record of whether the jury had deadlocked on first- and second-degree murder due to the jurors’ ambiguous responses during the jury poll. The district court denied his motion and held that the jury poll demonstrated that the jurors were hung on first-degree murder, and accordingly there was manifest necessity for the court‘s declaration of a mistrial as to every crime within Count 1. Phillips appealed to this Court to challenge the district court‘s denial of his motion to dismiss.
DISCUSSION
{14} The sole legal issue in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion by determining that the jurors were hung on first-degree murder based on the jury poll. See State v. Wardlow, 1981-NMSC-029, ¶ 13, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (applying an abuse of discretion standard to the trial court‘s determination that there was no reasonable possibility that the jury could agree on a verdict). When jurors are polled regarding their verdict, the trial court is under a nondiscretionary duty to clarify any ambiguity in the jurors’ responses and obtain a clear and
{15} In the face of juror confusion, the district court possessed significant discretion to undertake “proper remedial measures” to clarify the jurors’ ambiguous responses. Id. ¶ 17. For example, the district court could have explained that the term “deadlocked” means that the jury could not unanimously agree that Phillips either was or was not guilty of first-degree murder, and then it could have re-polled the jury. In the alternative, the court could have requested not guilty verdict forms for each crime,
{16} However, the district court did not have the option of taking the action it did in this case. Without establishing a clear record indicating the crimes on which the jurors had failed to reach a unanimous verdict, it was an abuse of discretion for the court to conclude that the jury was hung and that there was manifest necessity justifying a mistrial on all of the crimes in Count 1. See Holloway, 1987-NMCA-090, ¶ 17 (“This discretion, and the action taken by the [trial] court, . . . must resolve any doubt concerning the unanimity of a verdict. . . . [T]he verdict should be definite in nature and devoid of any ambiguity.“).
{17} We have long held that in cases such as this where the record is “silent upon which, if any, of the specific included offenses the jury had agreed and upon which the jury had reached an impasse,” we must “resolve any doubt in favor of the liberty of the citizen” and “dismiss[] upon double jeopardy grounds . . . such offenses on which the record is unclear.” State v. Castrillo, 1977-NMSC-059, ¶ 14, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146.1 In Castrillo, the defendant was tried by a jury on first-degree murder with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as the lesser included offenses. Id. ¶ 1. The foreman announced that the jury was deadlocked and that there was no purpose in continuing to deliberate. Id. ¶ 14. The judge declared a mistrial and then asked the foreman for a numerical split. Id. The foreman indicated that the split was nine for acquittal, and responded “Yes” when the judge asked, “Nine for acquittal and three for some degree of conviction?” Id. (emphasis added). The phrase “some degree of conviction” did not clearly establish upon which of the three crimes—first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter—the jury was deadlocked. Id. ¶¶ 1, 14. The Castrillo Court noted that the lack of a clear record as to whether the jurors disagreed on first- or second-degree murder demonstrated no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, and therefore jeopardy attached to those crimes and precluded the State from seeking a retrial. Id. ¶ 14. However, the defendant in Castrillo could be retried on the least included offense, voluntary manslaughter, because the jury would not have been hung had it reached a unanimous decision on manslaughter—it would have instead entered an acquittal
{18} The same principle applies here because the district court in this case failed to create a clear record “as to which of the included offenses the jury was considering at the time of its discharge.” Castrillo, 1977-NMSC-059, ¶ 14. This case presents an interesting wrinkle because the jury‘s note during the second day of deliberations demonstrates that at that point in the deliberations it was hung on second-degree murder. However, the note merely provides a snapshot of the jury‘s thinking partway through deliberations and does not give a definitive answer as to its final disposition of each crime within Count 1. See Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888, 899 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because of the significance of the entire deliberative process, the jurors’ preliminary votes in the jury room do not constitute a final verdict, even if they are unanimous. Instead, the verdict must be rendered by the jury in open court and accepted by the court in order to become final.” (citations omitted)). Indeed, the jury‘s note would not be sufficient even if it had been sent to the court on the same afternoon as the jury poll because once the court conducted the jury poll, the results
CONCLUSION
{19} Because the district court failed to clarify the ambiguous and conflicting jurors’ responses during the jury poll, we vacate the district court‘s order denying Phillips’ motion to dismiss the charges of first- and second-degree murder and remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss those charges with prejudice.
{20} IT IS SO ORDERED.
EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice
CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice
PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice
JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice