## Facts

- Alex Blueford was charged with capital murder for the death of a one-year-old child in his care.
- The charge included lesser-included offenses: first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.
- The jury was instructed to consider the offenses sequentially, moving to a lesser offense only if it had reasonable doubt on the greater offense.
- The verdict forms allowed the jury to convict on one offense or acquit on all; they did not allow formal acquittals on some offenses while continuing on others.
- During deliberations, the jury foreperson reported in open court that the jury was unanimous against guilt on capital murder and first-degree murder, deadlocked on manslaughter, and had not voted on negligent homicide.
- The court directed further deliberations; the jury later again reported it could not reach a verdict, and the court declared a mistrial due to deadlock.
- The State sought to retry Blueford on all charges; Blueford moved to bar retrial on capital and first-degree murder under the Double Jeopardy Clause, arguing the foreperson’s report was an acquittal on those offenses.
- The trial court denied the motion, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial on greater offenses when a jury reports unanimous votes against guilt on those offenses but no final verdict is returned because the jury is deadlocked on a lesser-included offense and a mistrial is declared.
2. Whether Double Jeopardy requires a trial court to accept or seek partial verdicts (formal acquittals on some counts) before declaring a mistrial for jury deadlock.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar retrial on capital murder or first-degree murder.
- The foreperson’s report was not a final resolution and therefore did not constitute an acquittal on the greater offenses.
- Because the jury was deadlocked, the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity, permitting retrial on the same offenses.
- The Constitution did not require the trial court to take a partial verdict or provide verdict forms enabling partial acquittals before declaring a mistrial for deadlock.

## Legal Principles

- Double Jeopardy bars retrial only after an acquittal or other final resolution of the defendant’s criminal liability on the charged offense.
- A jury’s interim statement about its voting status, made before deliberations end and without a returned verdict, lacks the finality required to be an acquittal.
- A mistrial declared because the jury cannot reach a verdict is a classic instance of manifest necessity and generally permits retrial on the same charges.
- The Double Jeopardy Clause does not compel trial courts to accept partial verdicts or to use any particular verdict form before declaring a mistrial for jury deadlock.

## Conclusion

Because the jury never returned a final verdict acquitting Blueford of capital or first-degree murder and the mistrial was properly declared for deadlock, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prevent Arkansas from retrying him on those charges.


Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012)