Opinion ID: 867478
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Double Jeopardy Bar of the Second Trial

Text: ¶ 17 Moody argues that the second trial should have been barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10. He makes two separate double jeopardy arguments. First, he argues that double jeopardy should have barred retrial because the prosecutor committed egregious misconduct in the first trial. Alternatively, he argues that the principles of double jeopardy should have prevented the State from improving its case at the second trial.
¶ 18 Whether double jeopardy bars retrial is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Siddle, 202 Ariz. 512, 515, ¶ 7, 47 P.3d 1150, 1153 (App.2002). ¶ 19 Two months before his second trial, Moody filed a motion to dismiss the case and preclude retrial because of prosecutorial misconduct occurring before and during his first trial. Moody claimed that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the first trial by providing false information to the mental health experts and intentionally interfering with his relationship with his attorney. Consequently, he argued, the principles of double jeopardy should have barred retrial. The motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial. Moody raises this claim again on appeal. ¶ 20 Traditionally, this court has extended double jeopardy protection based on prosecutorial misconduct only to cases in which the defendant moves for mistrial on those grounds. See Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 108-09, 677 P.2d 261, 271-72 (1984) (holding that jeopardy attaches under art. 2, § 10 of the Arizona Constitution when a mistrial is granted and other specified conditions are met); see also State v. Jorgenson, 198 Ariz. 390, 392, ¶ 7, 10 P.3d 1177, 1179 (2000) (extending Pool to cases in which the mistrial motion was meritorious and should have been granted). Moody filed no such motion in his first trial, and the convictions arising out of that trial were reversed for deprivation of counsel, not prosecutorial misconduct. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 509, ¶ 23, 968 P.2d at 582. Thus, Moody relies on the only case in which double jeopardy protections have been applied in the absence of a motion for a mistrial: State v. Minnitt, 203 Ariz. 431, 55 P.3d 774 (2002). ¶ 21 In Minnitt, we held that double jeopardy barred the retrial of a defendant whose convictions were procured by false and perjured testimony that the prosecutor placed before the jury with full knowledge of its perjurious character and of the likelihood that it would support a conviction. Id. at 439-40, ¶¶ 37-45, 55 P.3d at 782-83. Our holding in that case was expressly conditioned on the prosecution's concealment of the misconduct; we reasoned that the misconduct in that case would have warranted a mistrial had it been discovered. Id. at 439, ¶ 35, 55 P.3d at 782 (holding that a mistrial is not a prerequisite for a double jeopardy claim if a prosecutor engages in egregious conduct sufficient to require a mistrial but manages to conceal his conduct until after trial). Moody does not claim that the misconduct of which he now complains  offering false evidence before the grand jury and interfering with his relationship with counsel  was concealed as was the conduct in Minnitt. Additionally, while Minnitt could point to places in the trial at which a mistrial would have been appropriate had the misconduct been overt, Moody has made no such assertion regarding his first trial. In short, not only did Moody fail to move for a mistrial, but he has failed to demonstrate that a mistrial would ever have been appropriate. Consequently, our holding in Minnitt offers Moody no refuge from the requirement that a motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct be made during trial to preserve the issue for appeal. This issue therefore is not properly before us. ¶ 22 Minnitt also differs in one other important respect: after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, Minnitt filed a special action seeking review of that decision. Id. at 437, ¶ 24, 55 P.3d at 780. Our courts have held that a petition for special action is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim. Nalbandian v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 126, 130, 786 P.2d 977, 981 (App.1989). The reasons underlying the preference for special action review of denials of motions to dismiss based on double jeopardy are obvious: Because the Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees the right to be free from subsequent prosecution, the clause is violated by the mere commencement of retrial. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 660-61, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977) (observing that appellate review of a double jeopardy claim before retrial may prevent personal strain, public embarrassment, and expense of a criminal trial caused by a retrial eventually overturned on double jeopardy grounds). ¶ 23 This court has never reviewed a double jeopardy claim based on prosecutorial misconduct if the defendant had not previously moved for mistrial or sought relief by special action from the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss on those grounds. Moody provides no compelling reasons to diverge from this practice.
¶ 24 In addition to filing a pretrial motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds, the defense also sought to preclude the State from offering any evidence on retrial that it had not offered at the first trial, claiming that double jeopardy principles prevented the State from improving its case on retrial. At Moody's second trial, the State presented testimonial and physical evidence that it did not offer at the first trial. Additionally, after relying solely on premeditation at the first trial, the State added felony murder theories as to both murders on retrial. Moody now argues that the admission of this new evidence and the addition of the felony murder theories in the second trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. ¶ 25 Moody relies on the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), for the proposition that the use of new evidence in a retrial violates both federal and state double jeopardy protections. His reading of Burks is flawed. Burks states that [t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding. Id. Giving full effect to the phrase for the purpose of makes clear that Burks applies only to cases reversed for insufficiency of the evidence. See id. In such cases, the state cannot be allowed a second opportunity to prove a defendant guilty. Id. ¶ 26 In contrast, the Supreme Court has held that in all cases but those reversed on grounds of insufficient evidence, the Double Jeopardy Clause imposes no limitations whatever upon the power to retry a defendant who has succeeded in getting his first conviction set aside. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 719-20, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S.Ct. 2201, 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989). When a case is reversed for any reason but insufficient evidence, the original conviction has been nullified and `the slate wiped clean.' Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 442, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981) (quoting Pearce, 395 U.S. at 721, 89 S.Ct. 2072). While neither case specifically addresses the presentation of additional evidence, it follows that if the slate is wiped clean, the state is not limited to using evidence presented at the first trial. See Bullington, 451 U.S. at 442, 101 S.Ct. 1852; Pearce, 395 U.S. at 721, 89 S.Ct. 2072; see also Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 43 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982) (recognizing that [a] second chance for the defendant ... inevitably affords the prosecutor a second try as well, and that new evidence or advance understanding of the defendant's trial strategy will make the State's case even stronger during a second trial than it was at the first). ¶ 27 Moody's case, on the other hand, was reversed for deprivation of counsel. The sufficiency of the evidence of guilt was not at issue. Moody, 192 Ariz. at 509, ¶ 23, 968 P.2d at 582. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's refusal to restrict the State to evidence it offered in the first trial. ¶ 28 Finally, Moody contends that the State violated double jeopardy principles by adding a felony murder theory in the second trial after relying solely on a premeditated murder theory in the first trial. Moody relies on Thompson v. Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 1055-59 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds, 523 U.S. 538, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998), in claiming that the use of fundamentally inconsistent theories at the two trials violates a defendant's right to due process. Moody's reliance is misplaced, however, because Thompson involved a prosecutor who proceeded on conflicting theories in separate trials of co-defendants. See id. at 1055-57. That case turned on the prosecutor's actions of manipulat[ing] evidence and witnesses, argu[ing] inconsistent motives, and at [the second defendant's trial], essentially ridicul[ing] the theory he had used to obtain a conviction and death sentence at Thompson's trial. Id. at 1057. Moody is only one person, and the theories offered are not necessarily inconsistent. Thus Thompson is inapposite. ¶ 29 Moody offers no other support for his argument that the State could not lawfully proceed on a felony murder theory in the second trial. Consequently, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Moody's motions to preclude the State from proceeding on felony murder theories at the second trial. [2]