Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Mistrial and Retrial

Text: ¶ 19 Trial began on July 6, 1994, but the court declared a mistrial on July 20, after a State's witness gave a non-responsive answer that included some information that the prosecutor had been ordered not to disclose to the jury. After defense counsel argued that Mr. Zawada had intentionally risked a mistrial to disclose this information to the jury, the court found that the prosecution in this case has not in any way intentionally caused the result which leads to this mistrial. The court also stated, It is the further order of the court that a mistrial is appropriate in view of the ribbons that were worn to court by some of the witnesses. ¶ 20 Retrial began on July 21. During voir dire, the court asked the jury panel, Is there anyone here who feels that, uhfor any reason, that psychiatrists or psychiatry is not afield, uh, that should be permitted in a court of law? Anybody here who believes that they have any bias or prejudices towards psychiatry, the field of psychiatry? No juror responded to either question, but the prosecutor did. He moved for a mistrial. After approaching the bench and making the motion, Mr. Zawada stated, I know that the legal systema lot of people in the legal system think that these people have something to add to what's going on; I don't, and I think, here, those questionsand Iand I seesee it as the legal system being supportive of psychiatrists and psychologists. The court did not bother to rule on this patently frivolous motion. ¶ 21 To avoid redundancy, we discuss the trial evidence and the prosecutorial misconduct in later sections of the opinion. ¶ 22 The jury found Defendant guilty of first degree murder, attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault (eight counts), disorderly conduct (two counts), and felony fleeing. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison on the murder charge and a total of 184.25 years on the other charges. After calculating consecutive and concurrent terms, the total sentence was life plus 100 years. ¶ 23 Defendant's appeal argued for reversal on eleven grounds. In a memorandum decision, the court of appeals reversed one of the aggravated assault convictions and affirmed all other convictions. State v. Hughes, No. 2 CA-CR 94-0636 (Ariz.Ct.App. Dec. 24, 1996). We granted review as to those issues dealing with prosecutorial misconduct. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Constitution, article 6, section 5(3), and Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (A.R.S.) section 13-4031 (1989).