Matter of Plummer v. Rothwax, 63 N.Y.2d 243 (1984)
A retrial is not barred by double jeopardy when a trial court declares a mistrial due to a genuinely deadlocked jury, provided the trial court appropriately considered factors such as the length of deliberations, the complexity of the case, and the potential effects of requiring further deliberation before declaring the mistrial.
Summary
Plummer was tried for sodomy and assault. After a day-long trial and approximately 4.5 hours of deliberation, the jury indicated they were deadlocked. The trial judge, after questioning the foreperson, declared a mistrial. Plummer sought to prohibit a retrial, arguing double jeopardy. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial, as the trial was short, the issue simple, and the judge adequately explored the genuineness of the deadlock. Therefore, retrial was not barred.
Facts
The complainant testified that Plummer entered her apartment under false pretenses and forced her to perform oral sex. Her testimony contained inconsistencies with prior statements. The arresting officer confirmed receiving a radio transmission and arresting Plummer. A defense witness testified that lab tests found no sperm in the complainant’s mouth. The trial lasted one afternoon plus a few minutes the following morning.
Procedural History
The trial commenced; the jury deliberated. The jury sent a note indicating deadlock; the judge declared a mistrial over defense objection. Plummer moved to dismiss the indictment based on double jeopardy grounds before a new trial judge (Rothwax). The motion was denied. Plummer then commenced an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking a writ of prohibition to bar retrial. The Appellate Division denied the petition. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to the jury’s apparent inability to reach a verdict, thereby barring a retrial on double jeopardy grounds.
Holding
No, because the trial court appropriately considered the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in determining that the jury was genuinely deadlocked and unlikely to reach a verdict within a reasonable time.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the defendant’s right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal, but noted this right is subordinate to the public interest in seeing criminal prosecutions proceed to verdict. A mistrial due to a genuinely deadlocked jury is a classic example where retrial is not barred. The decision to declare a mistrial rests within the trial court’s broad discretion because the trial judge is best situated to assess the circumstances. However, this discretion is not unlimited; the court must find a “manifest necessity” for the mistrial, or that the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. Factors to consider include the length and complexity of the trial, length of deliberations, communication between court and jury, and potential effects of requiring further deliberation.
In this case, the trial was short and the issue simple, turning primarily on the complainant’s credibility. The jury’s 4.5-hour deliberation was not per se insufficient. The trial judge adequately explored the genuineness of the deadlock by questioning the foreperson, who insisted further deliberations would be fruitless, with no dissent from other jurors. While questioning all jurors would have been better practice, no prejudice resulted here. The court emphasized the importance of avoiding coercion or pressure on the jury to reach a verdict. The court noted that “the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict is limited to those situations where ‘in [the trial court’s] opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.’” Under the circumstances, failing to give an Allen charge was not error.