Background
Jie and Zachary Robbins were jointly indicted on money-laundering, illegal-enterprise-control, and attempted trafficking-in-stolen-property charges. Before trial, the superior court excluded certain PayPal and eBay records as untimely disclosed.
During trial, the State played part of Jie’s law-enforcement interview. Although the State planned to stop the recording before a reference to the excluded records, a detective mentioned bank records showing “millions of dollars worth of products.” The defendants moved for a mistrial and also sought dismissal with prejudice. The trial court granted a mistrial, found that the reference likely prevented a fair trial, and denied dismissal because the State had not acted intentionally or in bad faith. After that ruling, the defendants tried to withdraw their mistrial requests.
The court of appeals held that the defendants had not consented to a mistrial without prejudice and that retrial would violate double jeopardy. It vacated the mistrial order and directed dismissal with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, denied the defendants’ requested relief, affirmed the denial of dismissal with prejudice, and remanded. It held that defendants who seek to withdraw or limit a mistrial motion must do so before the trial court rules. Because the Robbinses made unconditioned mistrial requests and did not clarify or withdraw them before the court granted relief, their later objections could not undo their consent to the mistrial.
The court also held that the mistrial was independently supported by manifest necessity. Arizona’s test is disjunctive: manifest necessity exists if a verdict would inevitably be reversed or if an impartial verdict cannot be reached. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding that the detective’s highly inculpatory reference to excluded evidence about millions of dollars in products could influence the jury and preclude an impartial verdict.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant must withdraw or expressly condition a mistrial request before the trial court rules.
- Post-ruling objections cannot transform an unconditioned mistrial request into a request for dismissal with prejudice.
- Manifest necessity may rest on the inability to obtain an impartial verdict; certainty of appellate reversal is not required.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes that defendants cannot preserve a double-jeopardy objection by changing position after a court has granted their own mistrial request. It also clarifies that trial courts may declare a mistrial when prejudicial evidence compromises jury impartiality, even if an appellate reversal would not be certain.