Samuel B. Hill, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment that the trial judge's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial was not based on manifest necessity, thereby barring the second prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The majority held that proceeding with eleven jurors was a mandatory alternative under Art. 36.29(a) and Gov't Code §62.201, so no manifest necessity existed. Justice Cochran dissented, arguing the judge had discretion to declare a mistrial and that the appellant failed to produce evidence for his double jeopardy claim.