Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trial court correctly declared a mistrial in a murder defendant’s first trial and his second trial did not violate double jeopardy protections, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Monday in upholding a Tippecanoe Superior Court murder sentence.
In opening arguments during his jury trial, Jermaine Garnes’s counsel highlighted his girlfriend’s involvement in the murder, telling the jury Crystal Cox was convicted of murdering the three-year-old.
The state objected and moved to a mistrial since jury members were vetted based on their knowledge of Cox’s conviction, which was publicized just days prior to Garnes’s trial.
The trial court granted the motion, arguing divulsion of the information was “intended as a trial tactic” for the jury to know about the conviction, even though the parties tried to prevent the jury from knowing about it.
After that mistrial, Garnes was on trial again for the same four charges, and the jury found him guilty on all counts, leading to his 65-year sentencing.
Garnes tried to dismiss his case, claiming double jeopardy, but the trial court rejected it, confirming the mistrial was proper.
Garnes appeals his conviction on two arguments: that his murder conviction should be vacated for double jeopardy because the trail court should not have granted a mistrial and that his sentence is inappropriate.
The Court of Appeals found no merit to Garnes’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote that Cox’s conviction was not relevant to Garnes’s trial since her conviction doesn’t prove she committed murder alone. Instead, she was convicted on the theory that she acted with Garnes.
“With the agreement of both parties, extensive efforts were undertaken during voir dire to ensure the jury was not tainted by the public news of Cox’s conviction,” Weissmann wrote. “But these efforts were undone in an instant when Garnes’s counsel referenced that conviction during opening arguments. We see nothing in the record to disprove the trial court’s finding that this was a deliberate strategy by Garnes’s counsel ‘to shift the blame to [Cox]’ and that only a mistrial could remedy the fear of a tainted jury.”
The appellate court found no double jeopardy issue with Garnes’s second trial and conviction.
In addressing Garnes’s second argument that his conviction is inappropriate, the appellate court found the nature of his offense supports his sentence.
Garnes said Cox was also convicted, which should alleviate his blame, but the appeals court found Garnes was primarily responsible for the injuries to the child.
The appeals court further noted that Garnes’s character did not support a lighter sentence because of his “criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse,” with the court citing Pritcher v. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).
Weissmann wrote: “As the State notes, it is particularly troubling that, as remediation for his 2008 conviction for domestic violence, Garnes was ordered to complete a program aimed at limiting violent behavior.”
The case is Jermaine Garnes v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-406.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.