Filed 9/12/13
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E056708
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF154701)
BRIAN MICHAEL ARANDA, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michele D. Levine and
Helios (Joe) Hernandez, Judges. Affirmed and remanded.
Paul E. Zellerbach, District Attorney, and Kelli Catlett, Deputy District Attorney,
for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Blumenthal Law Offices, Virginia Blumenthal and Brent F. Romney for
Defendant and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
In Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503 (Stone), the California Supreme
Court held that when a jury indicates that it has unanimously determined that the
defendant is not guilty of a greater offense but is deadlocked only on a lesser included
offense, the court must afford the jury the opportunity to return a partial verdict of
acquittal on the greater offense before the trial court may declare a mistrial. If the court
does not do so, the mistrial is deemed to be without legal necessity as to the greater
offense, and double jeopardy principles preclude retrying the defendant for that offense.
(Id. at p. 519.)
Not all states have a partial acquittal rule. In Blueford v. Arkansas (2012) 566
U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2044] (Blueford), which was decided while this case was pending in
the trial court, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s double
jeopardy clause does not mandate such a procedure, and that, in a state which does not
have a partial acquittal rule, if the jury deadlocks on a lesser included offense without
formally returning a verdict of not guilty on the greater offense, the defendant may be
retried on both the greater and lesser offenses. (Id., 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2048-2053.)
The People, the appellants in this case, contend that Blueford abrogates Stone,
because Stone based its analysis solely on double jeopardy jurisprudence under the
United States Constitution. Defendant contends that Stone is based instead on the
California Constitution and that Blueford consequently does not abrogate the partial
verdict rule enunciated in Stone.
2
We conclude that Stone continues to apply in criminal prosecutions in California
state courts until such time as the California Supreme Court holds otherwise.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Brian Michael Aranda was tried on an information which alleged a
single count of first degree murder.1 The jury was instructed on first degree murder and
the uncharged lesser included offenses of second degree murder and voluntary
manslaughter. The jury was apparently given “guilty” verdict forms for first degree
murder, second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, but only a single “not guilty”
verdict form.2
On Friday, December 2, 2011, after the court received a report of possible
misconduct by one juror—“throwing things” when the juror disagreed with other
jurors—and that the jury was possibly deadlocked, the court summoned the jury foreman
into the courtroom. The court asked the foreman “how things are going.” The foreman
replied that the jury was at a stalemate. He stated that the jury had “basically ruled out
murder in the first degree” and had “worked down to voluntary manslaughter, but there’s
still a couple that are still stuck on second degree.” He stated that the jury was having “a
1 Because no verdict was returned, the underlying facts were not determined. The
trial evidence is in any event not relevant to the issues raised in this appeal.
2 The clerk’s transcript does not contain the unused verdict forms, and neither
party cites any portion of the record which makes this explicit. Nevertheless, it is clear
that the jury was not given a “not guilty” verdict form for first degree murder.
3
tough time coming to a unanimous decision.” The court told the foreman to go back to
the jury room and to continue deliberations.
The following Monday, December 5, the foreman sent a request to speak to the
court. The foreman stated that there was still one juror who thought that defendant was
guilty of second degree murder and two others who were “on the side of voluntary.”
Nine jurors “are not guilty.” The foreman stated that the jury was “kind of at a
stalemate.” He stated that the jury had gone through all of the evidence, “over and over
and over.” He reported that some jurors were concerned about Juror No. 10 because
Juror No. 10 “knows a lot of Corona police officers” and worked for the city. It was
Juror No. 10 who was “pretty much stuck on second degree.”
The court asked the foreman to step out into the hallway. After discussion with
counsel, the court decided to bring the jury in and “ask them what they can do” to assist
the jury, but to have them continue to deliberate for the rest of the afternoon. When the
jury came into the courtroom, several jurors asked questions concerning instructions.
Juror No. 12 then said that although the jury had been deliberating for six days, they were
still “at different ends of the spectrum.” Juror No. 12 did not believe that the jury would
ever reach a verdict. The court directed the jury to continue deliberations until 3:30 pm.
(It was then 2:49 p.m.)
Both before and after the colloquy with the foreman on December 5, 2011,
defense counsel asked the court to give the jury a “not guilty” verdict form to allow the
jury to state that it had found defendant not guilty of first degree murder, if that was the
case. The court refused, saying that doing so after having not originally given the jury
4
“not guilty” verdicts on any of the offenses might give jurors the impression that the
court was “directing them as to which way to think.”
At 3:30 p.m., the foreman reported that the jury was “still at the same spot,” i.e.,
nine to acquit, two for voluntary manslaughter and one for second degree murder. The
court concluded that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked and declared a mistrial.
Referring back to her request that the jury be given a “not guilty” verdict form for first
degree murder, defense counsel then stated that defendant “should not be able to be tried
again on first degree murder” because the jury had indicated that it had acquitted him of
that offense.
The defense filed a motion to dismiss the first degree murder charge and the lesser
included offenses, asserting “once in jeopardy.” The prosecution opposed the motion.
After argument, the court3 held that the trial judge’s failure to afford the jury the
opportunity to return a not guilty verdict on first degree murder precluded retrial on that
offense, but that the trial judge had properly declared a mistrial on the lesser offenses and
that retrial on the lesser offenses was permissible. The court subsequently denied the
prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, which was based on the recently decided case
of Blueford, supra, 132 S.Ct. 2044.
3The Honorable Helios (Joe) Hernandez presided over the trial. The posttrial
motion was heard by the Honorable Michele D. Levine.
5
The prosecution filed a timely notice of appeal.4
LEGAL ANALYSIS
It has long been established that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit retrial of a criminal
defendant after a mistrial has been declared without the defendant’s consent, unless the
mistrial resulted from “manifest necessity”—typically, a deadlocked jury which is unable
to return a unanimous verdict. (See Blueford, supra, 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2050, 2053.) The
same rule, termed “legal necessity,” arises under the California Constitution. (People v.
Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 300 (Fields).)
As noted above, in Stone, supra, 31 Cal.3d 503, the California Supreme Court held
that when a jury indicates that it has unanimously determined that a defendant is not
guilty of a charged offense but reports that it is deadlocked on an uncharged lesser
included offense, the trial court must offer the jury the opportunity to return a verdict of
not guilty on the greater offense before it declares a mistrial. “Failure to do so will cause
4An order granting a motion to dismiss based on a plea of former jeopardy is
appealable as long as the motion was granted before a jury has been impaneled in a
subsequent proceeding. (People v. McDougal (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 571, 580-581;
Pen. Code, § 1238, subd. (a)(8).)
6
a subsequently declared mistrial to be without legal necessity,” with respect to the greater
offense, and double jeopardy principles preclude a retrial on that offense.5 (Id. at p. 519.)
The People contend that Blueford implicitly overruled Stone because in that case
the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not require that a
jury which is deadlocked on a lesser included offense be given the opportunity to return a
partial verdict of not guilty on the greater offense. (Blueford, supra, 132 S.Ct. at
pp. 2050-2053.) If Stone based its rule exclusively on the Fifth Amendment, as the
People assert, then its holding was abrogated by Blueford. Blueford does not, however,
hold that a state may not require the opportunity for partial acquittal upon deadlock on a
lesser included offense. Accordingly, if the partial acquittal rule arises independently
under the California Constitution, the partial acquittal rule enunciated in Stone retains its
validity.
The People are correct that the California Supreme Court did not explicitly state in
Stone that the partial acquittal rule arises independently under the California Constitution.
Although the court stated that it remains free to delineate a higher level of protection
under article I, section 15 of the California Constitution (Stone, supra, 31 Cal.3d at
p. 510), the court did not state that it was delineating a higher level of protection under
the California Constitution. After discussing California authorities involving somewhat
5 The Stone rule does not require the jury to make any formal announcement
that it has unanimously decided that the defendant is not guilty of the charged offense.
Rather, “some indication of deadlock only on an uncharged lesser included offense”
suffices to trigger the trial court’s duty to afford the jury the opportunity to return a
partial verdict of not guilty on the charged offenses. (People v. Marshall (1996) 13
Cal.4th 799, 826.)
7
similar but distinguishable scenarios (id. at pp. 512-516), the court “turn[ed] to the
precise issue here—whether the double jeopardy clause requires formulation of a
procedure for the receipt of partial verdicts in [the circumstances present in that case].”
(Id. at pp. 516-517.) The court did not specify which double jeopardy clause it was
relying on. And, the ensuing discussion leading to the court’s holding is based almost
entirely on Green v. United States (1957) 355 U.S. 184, a Fifth Amendment case. (Stone,
at pp. 517-518.)6
Nevertheless, the court has made it clear that the legal necessity rule, of which the
partial acquittal rule is a part, is a doctrine which arises independently under the
California Constitution. In Fields, supra, 13 Cal.4th 289, the court addressed the
contention that the implied acquittal rule, which applies when a jury returns a guilty
verdict on a lesser offense without expressly stating that it is deadlocked on a greater
offense, should also apply when a jury reports that it is deadlocked on a greater offense
and returns a verdict of guilty on a lesser offense. (Id. at p. 295.) The court held that the
implied acquittal rule arises both under the federal and state Constitutions. (Id. at p. 299.)
Analyzing the defendant’s argument first under the federal double jeopardy clause, the
6 In Blueford, the court rejected the argument that Green v. United States, supra,
355 U.S. 184, mandated a finding of implied acquittal. In Green, the court held that
when a jury convicts a defendant of a lesser included offense and does not return a verdict
on the greater offense, acquittal of the greater offense is implied. That rule does not
apply when the jury has deadlocked on a lesser included offense, even if the jury was
instructed that it must acquit the defendant of the greater offense before returning a
verdict on a lesser included offense. (Blueford, supra, 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2050-2052.)
Implied acquittal, however, is distinct from the doctrines of manifest necessity and legal
necessity to justify a retrial following jury deadlock. (Fields, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp.
299-300.)
8
court found the rule inapplicable where the jury is “expressly deadlocked, rather than
merely silent, on the greater offense.” (Id. at p. 301) Based on cases where under other
circumstances the United States Supreme Court “recognized a distinction, for double
jeopardy purposes, between a jury’s silence and its expressed inability to return a verdict”
(ibid.), the court concluded that the federal Constitution “does not compel the
conclusion” that the doctrine of implied acquittal applies in every case in which the jury
returns a verdict of guilty on the lesser included offense. (Id. at pp. 301-302.)
Nevertheless, the court held, that does not end the inquiry, because the doctrines of
implied acquittal and of manifest necessity/legal necessity “are well established under
both the federal and state Constitutions.” Accordingly, a different result could obtain
under California law. (Id. at pp. 302-303.) The court held, however, that there is
“nothing in the state decisions suggesting it is any more plausible under California law
than under federal law” to apply the doctrine of applied acquittal when the jury has
expressly deadlocked on the greater offense. (Id. at p. 303.)
This does not directly resolve the question presented here, i.e., whether the Stone
partial acquittal rule survives Blueford. However, because Fields makes it abundantly
clear that California’s Constitution is the independent source of its double jeopardy
jurisprudence to the extent that it may provide protection greater than is mandated by the
federal Constitution, we conclude that we are compelled to hold that the Stone rule arises
independently of the federal Constitution and that it retains its validity under the
California Constitution until such time as our Supreme Court holds otherwise. We
emphasize that in Blueford, the court did not hold that a partial acquittal rule is
9
impermissible under the federal Constitution; on the contrary, it held only that such a rule
is not compelled by the Fifth Amendment. (Blueford, supra, 132 S.Ct. at pp. 2050-2053.)
Because Blueford does not mandate the abrogation of Stone, we do not believe it is our
prerogative to disregard a rule enunciated by the California Supreme Court simply
because the court did not explicitly hold that the rule arises under both the state and
federal Constitutions. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450,
455.) Accordingly, we hold that Blueford abrogates Stone only to the extent that Stone
held that the partial acquittal rule arises under the federal Constitution, and that the partial
acquittal rule continues to apply in prosecutions in California state courts.
The remainder of the People’s arguments are based on the contention that the trial
court should have applied Blueford to determine whether the mistrial was properly
granted with respect to the charged offense of first degree murder. Accordingly, we need
not address them.7
7 Because the People do not assert that the trial court erred in finding the mistrial
without legal necessity under Stone, we need not address the merits of the ruling.
Defendant, on the other hand, argues that double jeopardy bars retrial on both the charged
offense and the uncharged lesser offenses and asks that we dismiss “all charges.” We
cannot grant defendant affirmative relief with respect to the uncharged lesser offenses
because he has not appealed from that aspect of the trial court’s ruling on his motion.
(Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439.) In any event, the trial court
correctly concluded that retrial on the lesser included offenses is permissible pursuant to
Stone.
10
DISPOSITION
The order granting the motion to dismiss the charge of first degree murder is
affirmed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings. The previously ordered stay is
lifted.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
McKINSTER
Acting P.J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
KING
J.
11
The People v. Aranda
Combined Opinion