Court Opinion

ID: 9678822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:33:16.891173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.203128
License: Public Domain

WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe it was an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case for the judge to grant a mistrial sua sponte, I respectfully dissent.
The evening before granting the mistrial, the judge decided to bring the jury back to deliberate on a new day after hearing the panel was “pretty much split.” Then after determining from the jury that a change in the vote on the panel had occurred during their morning deliberations, the judge dismissed the jury during the noon hour without articulating a reason into the record why the jury could not continue to deliberate during at least part of the afternoon. Further, the judge did not give the jury an Allen charge. In my judgment, under the facts of this case, if a jury is ordered to return for a new day of deliberation, with the resulting inconvenience to the jurors’ personal lives, that it is manifest for any trial judge to give them every reasonable opportunity to reach a verdict.
To that point, the jury had considered the evidence in the case less than six hours in total, and just over two hours from the first indication that no chance of reconciliation existed. Further, neither lawyer had requested a mistrial and the jury, although indicating that it was deadlocked, had only requested a break for lunch.
*396My disagreement with the majority is not over the standard of review as stated, but over whether this particular set of facts rises to an abuse of discretion under those standards. I can not say that the jury was “kept together for such time as to render it altogether improbable that it can agree.” Tex. Code Ceim. P. Ann. art. 36.31 (Vernon 1981). Because I believe that a retrial of the defendant would place her twice in jeopardy for the same crime, I respectfully dissent.