Manifest Necessity Archives

F-2016-626

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 19, 2018
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-626, Christopher Shane Lee Fuentez appealed his conviction for Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Summary: Christopher Shane Lee Fuentez was found guilty by a jury of two crimes: Conjoint Robbery and Possession of a Firearm. He was sentenced to 20 years for the robbery and 3 years for the firearm charge, both sentences to run at the same time. The case was appealed because Fuentez argued that he shouldn’t have been tried again after his first trial ended in a mistrial, which he believed happened without good reason. The court agreed with Fuentez, stating that the reasons for declaring a mistrial did not meet the standard of manifest necessity. This meant that the judge who ordered the mistrial didn’t have the right reasons to stop the trial. It was important for Fuentez to have his trial finished by the jury that was already picked, and the court found that the trial judge should have considered other less drastic options before calling for a mistrial. Therefore, the court reversed Fuentez's convictions and instructed to dismiss the charges because he had already been tried once. The decision also meant that the other reasons he gave for appeal didn’t need to be looked at anymore. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion, believing that the mistrial was warranted because of Fuentez's actions in trying to influence witnesses.

F-2000-948

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2000
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. PR-99-1326, the Petitioners appealed their conviction for murder and shooting with intent to kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the mistrial declared by the judge was not justified and therefore double jeopardy bars the State from retrying the Petitioners. One judge dissented. The case began when the Petitioners were charged with serious offenses. The first trial ended in a mistrial, which the judge declared after issues arose during a witness's cross-examination. The attorneys raised concerns about whether the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that could help the defense. This evidence related to the witness's background and credibility. The judge felt that the defense attorney’s questions may have harmed the trial, which led him to call for a mistrial. However, after reviewing the trial's events, the court found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial. In other words, the situation did not require such an extreme remedy. The court felt that a warning could have been sufficient to address any perceived problems before resorting to declaring a mistrial. Ultimately, the review concluded that the judge made errors in declaring the mistrial and, as a result, the defendants could not be tried again for these charges. The opinion emphasized that once a jury is discharged without sufficient reason, it can lead to violating the defendants' rights under the double jeopardy clause, which prevents someone from being tried for the same crime twice.