Matter of Gentil v. Margulis, 24 N.Y.3d 1028 (2014)

A defendant’s consent to a mistrial can be implied from the circumstances, such that retrial does not violate double jeopardy protections.

Summary

In *Matter of Gentil v. Margulis*, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a retrial was barred by double jeopardy after a mistrial was declared in a criminal case. The court held that the defendant had implicitly consented to a mistrial, waiving their double jeopardy protection. This ruling was based on the defendant’s actions, including requesting a partial verdict and remaining silent about the court’s plans for retrial. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, which had granted a petition arguing a lack of manifest necessity for the mistrial, finding the defendant’s implied consent to the mistrial determinative.

Facts

During a criminal trial, a juror became unable to continue deliberations. The defendant refused to substitute an alternate juror and requested a partial verdict on the count upon which the jury indicated it had reached a verdict. The trial court declared a mistrial on the remaining counts. The defendant subsequently argued that a retrial on the unresolved counts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Procedural History

The defendant filed an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition, arguing that a retrial would violate double jeopardy. The Appellate Division granted the petition, finding no manifest necessity for a mistrial. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s actions constituted implied consent to a mistrial, thereby waiving double jeopardy protection?

Holding

1. Yes, because the defendant’s request for a partial verdict and silence regarding retrial plans constituted implied consent to a mistrial.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that a defendant’s consent to a mistrial could be implied from the circumstances. In this case, the defendant’s request for a partial verdict and failure to object to the court’s intentions to retry the unresolved counts indicated implicit consent to the mistrial. The court distinguished this case from situations where the defendant affirmatively opposed the mistrial or did not take actions suggesting agreement. The court emphasized that the issue of consent is a factual question. The majority found the defendant had implicitly consented to the mistrial and therefore did not reach the issue of manifest necessity.

Judge Fahey, in a concurring opinion, stated that the Appellate Division made no factual findings regarding the defendant’s consent and that such a determination is a factual matter, which the Court of Appeals is generally without power to address. Judge Fahey argued there was manifest necessity for a mistrial.

Practical Implications

This case reinforces the principle that a defendant’s actions can waive double jeopardy rights. Attorneys must carefully advise clients on how their conduct during trial can impact their rights. A defendant’s actions, such as requesting specific remedies or remaining silent when retrial is discussed, may be construed as consent to a mistrial. Legal practitioners should ensure that the record clearly reflects a defendant’s position on a mistrial to avoid future disputes about implied consent. Courts will scrutinize the specific facts to determine whether consent can be implied. This decision underscores the importance of a clear record of the defendant’s position, as factual determinations are often not revisited on appeal.