Opinion ID: 853462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Guideline for Dismissal of Information

Text: Caselaw from elsewhere suggests that the trial court must generally defer to the prosecutor's decision to retry the case, but if fundamental fairness compels dismissal, the court is authorized to do so. State v. Sauve, 666 A.2d at 1169; State v. Moriwake, 647 P.2d at 712. In determining whether fundamental fairness compels dismissal, a trial court must balance two basic rights: a defendant's right to a fair trial and the State's right to seek a verdict on validly prosecuted charges. State v. Cordova, 128 N.M. 390, 993 P.2d 104, 108 (Ct.App.1999). The Vermont Supreme Court has identified various factors that a trial court should weigh when striking this balance. Justice Denise Johnson's opinion listed the following factors: (1) the seriousness and circumstances of the charged offense; (2) the extent of harm resulting from the offense; (3) the evidence of guilt and its admissibility at trial; (4) the likelihood of new or additional evidence at trial or retrial; (5) the defendant's history, character, and condition; (6) the length of any pretrial incarceration or any incarceration for related or similar offenses; (7) the purpose and effect of imposing a sentence authorized by the offense; (8) the impact of dismissal on public confidence in the judicial system or on the safety and welfare of the community in the event the defendant is guilty; (9) the existence of any misconduct by law enforcement personnel in the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of the defendant; (10) the existence of any prejudice to defendant as the result of passage of time; (11) the attitude of the complainant or victim with respect to dismissal of the case; and (12) any other relevant fact indicating that judgment of conviction would serve no useful purpose. State v. Sauve, 666 A.2d at 1168 (citations omitted). The New Jersey court identified some other relevant considerations: (1) the number of prior mistrials and the outcome of the juries' deliberations, as known; and ([2]) the trial court's own evaluation of the relative strength of each party's case. . . . State v. Abbati, 493 A.2d at 521-22. We think these factors, or such of them as appear relevant in a given case, form an appropriate basis for determining whether to dismiss a defendant's information after multiple prosecutions caused by mistrials. There is surely not a specific number of hung juries that would warrant dismissal, and it is not possible to describe every circumstance where dismissal would be proper. The trial court is in the best position to weigh the relevant factors in making such a decision. Accordingly, abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard for appellate review of a trial court's decision to dismiss or retry a prosecution previously mistried due to hung juries. [8] The trial court denied Sivels' motion to dismiss by stating, I do think the Court has inherent jurisdiction to limit prosecutions, because at some point it gets to be unreasonable. I personally don't think we've reached that in the case of Collis Sivels. . . . [T]here is a limit. I don't know what that limit is, and I'm not gonna set it. So, I'm going to deny your motion. . . . (R. at S12-13.) Sivels cites as error the trial court's failure to undertake any legal analysis to support its ultimate conclusion. (Appellant's Br. at 25.) He describes the court's failure as a gross abuse of discretion. (Id. at 26.) The State responds, in its alternative argument, that the trial court properly declined to exercise its authority in this case because the State had additional evidence to present at the second retrial, making a conviction more likely. (Appellee's Br. at 5.) We cannot conclude that the trial court erred by not following the guidelines we mentioned above, because they did not then exist. Accordingly, we will examine the trial court's decision in light of these guidelines to determine whether the court abused its discretion. The circumstances of Sivels' charged offense involved the murder of an unarmed man during the commission of a robbery. The victim was beaten and shot in the abdomen and then in the head. At the time Sivels filed a motion for dismissal of his murder charge, he had encountered two mistrials. Sivels' counsel was advised that the first mistrial resulted after seven jurors voted for acquittal and five voted for conviction. The second mistrial resulted after nine jurors voted for acquittal and three voted for conviction. [9] Sivels remained incarcerated without bond for two and a half years before his final trial. During that time, as a result of the trial on June 1, 1998, he was acquitted on two of his charged offenses, felony murder and robbery. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the prosecutor indicated his desire to retry the case. [10] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court indicated its own evaluation of the relative strength of the State's case and its belief that Sivels committed the crime charged. At the last retrial, the State had newly available eyewitness testimony by Adams that Sivels murdered the victim. The trial resulted in a conviction. Upon consideration of these relevant factors, the balance between Sivels' right to fundamental fairness and the State's right to seek a verdict on validly prosecuted charges swings in favor of the State. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to retry the case.