{ "id": 4773348, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LOUISE EDITH LACHAT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lachat", "decision_date": "1986-06-03", "docket_number": "No. 243A85", "first_page": "73", "last_page": "87", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "317 N.C. 73" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "316 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4695105 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 S.E. 2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562214 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 605", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552916 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560988 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.C. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277066 ], "year": 1872, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 N.C. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275040 ], "year": 1836, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "166" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/19/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "614" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599333 ], "year": 1930, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "294-95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E. 2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334" }, { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 S.E. 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1905, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270113 ], "year": 1905, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "629" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 S.E. 2d 542", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573967 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "decided under former art. I, \u00a7 17" }, { "page": "246" }, { "page": "246" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627279 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "decided under former art. I, \u00a7 17" }, { "page": "449-50" }, { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 226", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561330 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 N.C. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "year": 1795, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "a brief history of the abuses leading to the acceptance in England and in North Carolina of the common law rule against double jeopardy in capital cases" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 N.C. 529", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278175 ], "year": 1869, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/63/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "846-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573643 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4695105 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" }, { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0306-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1129, "char_count": 29866, "ocr_confidence": 0.829, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.518818552933553e-07, "percentile": 0.8112918938517265 }, "sha256": "2a6529d22a46e4fd8e7a9d99a718fe5b04b37174d921125743a0a355591be67a", "simhash": "1:8922b762f54a0cf6", "word_count": 5124 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:24.016055+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LOUISE EDITH LACHAT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThis appeal presents inter alia the issue of whether the prohibition against double jeopardy forbade the second trial of the defendant for murder, since her previous trial on the same charge had been terminated by a mistrial without findings of fact by the trial court showing that a mistrial was necessary. We answer in the affirmative and hold that the trial court erred by denying the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the murder charge against her on the ground of former jeopardy. As a result, the judgment entered against the defendant in this case must be vacated and the defendant discharged from custody.\nThe defendant, Louise Edith Lachat, was indicted on 5 March 1984 for the murder in the first degree of her thirteen-year-old daughter Michelle. She was first tried on this charge before the Superior Court, Forsyth County, in August of 1984. That trial ended during the guilt determination phase when the court declared a mistrial ex mero motu on 11 August 1984.\nOn 6 December 1984, the defendant filed a written motion to dismiss the charge against her. In her motion she stated that the declaration of mistrial which terminated her first trial was made without consulting her attorney or affording him an opportunity to object and without making findings of fact with respect to the grounds for the mistrial. The defendant therefore contended that a retrial would unconstitutionally \u201csubject her to double jeopardy for the same offense.\u201d On 10 December 1984, the trial court heard arguments of counsel, took evidence, made findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The trial court then commenced the second trial of the defendant \u2014the trial from which this appeal was taken.\nA complete recitation of the evidence presented at the trial from which this appeal was taken is unnecessary to a consideration of the issues we find dispositive. In summary, some of the evidence tended to show the following:\nMichelle Lachat appeared in September 1982, to be the normal and healthy thirteen-year-old daughter of Remy and Louise Lachat. Michelle and her mother had a very warm and loving relationship. They had visited relatives in Switzerland in August and returned to prepare for the coming school year.\nRemy Lachat worked for the LaRose Company, a sportswear manufacturer. The Lachats lived well. In September 1982, however, Louise Lachat became increasingly suspicious that her husband\u2019s sportswear manufacturing business was failing. He assured her throughout the summer that the business was fine. Finally, on Sunday, 12 September 1982, the defendant Louise Lachat contacted one of the partners in the LaRose Company. He informed her that the business stood on the verge of bankruptcy and no longer employed her husband. The defendant reacted like a concerned wife who had just learned of an investment failure. Despite the failure, the Lachats appeared financially secure for the immediate future.\nAt approximately 6:30 p.m. on Monday, 13 September 1982, Remy Lachat began screaming and banging on the door of his neighbor, John Storch\u2019s house. Remy was yelling that his daughter and wife were dead. Storch and Remy Lachat ran to the Lachat home. Once there, Storch observed Michelle apparently dead in a bathtub of cold water. The defendant Louise Lachat appeared to be dead lying on her bed in the master bedroom of the home. Remy Lachat carefully removed his daughter\u2019s body and placed it on the bed in her room.\nDr. Lou Stringer, Forsyth County Medical Examiner, arrived at the Lachat home shortly after 7:00 p.m. He found the defendant unconscious with very poor breathing and pulse. He was able to stabilize the defendant\u2019s condition, and an ambulance transported her to Baptist Hospital. Dr. Stringer found Michelle Lachat on her bed and determined that she was dead.\nAfter treating the defendant Louise Lachat and examining the body of Michelle, Dr. Stringer performed his function as a medical examiner. An autopsy indicated that Michelle had died of drowning, but only a minimal amount of water was found in her lungs. A high level of amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant drug, indicated that Michelle had been drugged before drowning.\nSally Virginia West, a registered nurse working in the intensive care unit of Baptist Hospital, testified that after regaining consciousness the defendant made certain statements. The defendant specifically stated that she had killed her daughter. Nurse Linda Johnson testified that the defendant made a statement to her in which the defendant admitted that she had gotten Michelle up for breakfast, placed medicine in her food and later held her underwater in the bathtub until the defendant was sure that she was dead. The defendant also stated that she had killed Michelle because of financial problems which she did not want her daughter to have to live through. The defendant stated that: \u201cShe was very sorry that she hadn\u2019t died too.\u201d\nDr. Barry Cole, a qualified psychiatrist, met the defendant Louise Lachat in the intensive care unit of Baptist Hospital the day after her daughter\u2019s death. He interviewed the defendant at that time, and she told him of her actions causing the death of her daughter. Dr. Cole also spoke with members of the hospital staff concerning information they had received from the defendant\u2019s family and friends and examined the defendant\u2019s hospital medical records. Dr. Cole formed the opinion that the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time she killed her daughter.\nDr. Selwyn Rose examined the defendant on 15 September 1982. He examined her again on two occasions within the following week. He had the defendant transferred to another hospital and later to the Mandala Center. During the following six or seven weeks, he thoroughly examined the defendant and had several tests performed on her. He too formed the opinion that the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time she killed her daughter. Although he felt that the defendant understood the nature of her act in killing her daughter, he was of the opinion that she did not understand the quality of her act.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The trial court then concluded that there were no aggravating factors and entered judgment sentencing the defendant to imprisonment for life.\nThe defendant assigns error to the trial court\u2019s denial of her motion to dismiss the charge against her prior to her second trial for the murder of her daughter. She contends that by denying her motion, the trial court erroneously placed her in jeopardy a second time for the same offense in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of North Carolina and the statutes and common law of North Carolina. We neither consider nor decide the questions the defendant contends arise under the Constitution of the United States. Instead, we conclude that she is entitled on adequate and independent grounds of North Carolina law to have the judgment against her vacated and the charge of first degree murder dismissed.\nThe defendant specifically contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to make findings of fact on the question of the necessity for a mistrial before declaring a mistrial during her first trial for the murder of her daughter. We find this contention to have merit.\nAfter the admission of all of the evidence at the defendant\u2019s first trial, the jury began deliberations at 4:24 p.m. on a Thursday. Court was recessed for the evening at 5:10 p.m. The jury returned on Friday morning at 9:30 a.m. and deliberated until 8:06 p.m. At that time the jury returned to the courtroom and reported to the trial court as follows:\nForeman of the Jury: Your Honor, the jury feels that we are not able to reach a unanimous decision. We have reached an impasse.\nCOURT: Let me ask you a question. Now, I don\u2019t want to know how you\u2019re divided up, I want to know the numerical differences, such as ten and two or eight and four or how you are divided that way.\nFOREMAN OF the Jury: It\u2019s either nine and three or eight and four or seven and three.\nCOURT: Well, I\u2019m going to ask you to go back in there and deliberate further.\nForeman of the Jury: We\u2019ll try.\n(Jury deliberations continued at 8:09 P.M.)\n(The following took place about 9:45 p.m.)\nCOURT: You all want to approach the bench here?\n(Counsel approached the bench.)\nCOURT: Bring the jury in.\n(Jury returned to the courtroom at 9:46 P.M.)\nCOURT: Mr. Foreman, are you making any progress?\nForeman of the Jury: No, sir.\nCOURT: You think you \u2014\nFOREMAN OF the Jury: We have gotten to the point that we would like to ask for a recess.\nCOURT: Until tomorrow?\nForeman of the Jury-. Until some time. We feel that some of the jurors are pretty fatigued and we\u2019re not making that much progress.\nCOURT: Well, let me ask you this: Do you think if you came back tomorrow you could make any progress?\nForeman of the Jury: I don\u2019t know how much.\nCOURT: Well, when I say progress, do you think you could reach a verdict in this case if you came back.\nForeman OF the JURY: The last period of time has been very difficult moving forward.\nCourt: Well, I\u2019m going \u2014 what I\u2019m going to do at this time, I\u2019m going to withdraw a juror and declare a mistrial; so we\u2019ll withdraw Juror Number 12 and declare a mistrial.\nI think that you deliberated long enough; if you could reach a verdict, you would have done it by now.\nSo I want to thank you for your service, your patience here and for your hard work on this case. I\u2019m sorry that you couldn\u2019t reach a verdict.\nAnd, of course, this means this case will have to be tried again by some other jury. I can say that to you now.\nBut it\u2019s my feeling if you couldn\u2019t reach a verdict all day today until nine and an hour yesterday that I don\u2019t believe you would have ever done it by staying out \u2014 by bringing you back tomorrow morning or staying late \u2014 letting you stay out further tonight.\nI don\u2019t want to let you stay out further tonight. I don\u2019t want to punish jurors.\nFOREMAN OF the JURY: Yes, Your Honor, we tried very, very hard. We made a lot of progress. We fought and reiterated and no one was bashful about talking. No one was bashful about putting their input in.\nWe have some divergent opinions and we have individuals. All of us are very strong willed about their opinions, and there\u2019s always a possibility that given more time that people do change their minds, and I don\u2019t\u2014\nIt has been very difficult for all of us to say that we cannot reach a verdict, but I think we \u2014and I want the record to show that we did try very hard.\nCOURT: No question about that. Let me tell you, you\u2019re not the first jury that\u2019s been in this situation.\nForeman of the Jury: Again, we are willing to keep trying, and it\u2019s a situation that \u2014 that has not made a lot of progress and it just keeps\u2014\nThe issues are not that profound, but it\u2019s a question that we\u2019re \u2014 that we have just not been able to accomplish getting over the barrier. And that\u2019s kind of the way I sum it up.\nCOURT: I think that then I made a mistake withdrawing a juror.\nJuror Number Seven: I do.\nFOREMAN OF the Jury: I can\u2019t say that. I don\u2019t know that. I don\u2019t have that much experience, you know. Certainly you have much more than I do.\nI don\u2019t want the jury to think I made a decision for them on the thing. And I have not done that, but we have reached a point that we have been for several hours, and it has been a very rapid discussion about the issues and the points.\nAnd I just wanted to make that statement.\nCOURT: Well, you think if you came back here tomorrow and tried again that you could reach a verdict?\nJuror Number Seven: There\u2019s a possibility.\nJUROR Number Five: Anything\u2019s possible. Everyone\u2019s tired.\nJUROR Number Seven: We didn\u2019t say that. We did not agree to say that. Everybody wants to try. We haven\u2019t given up.\nCOURT: Any objections to my declaring a mistrial?\nMr. COFER: I\u2019ve never been faced with this situation before.\nCOURT: How\u2019s the defendant feel?\nMr. COFER: Well, obviously, Your Honor, if I thought the verdict was going my way I\u2019d want them to stay here all night, but \u2014\nCOURT: I\u2019m not talking about staying here all night. I\u2019m going to comply with the wishes of the jury under the circumstances.\nMr. COFER: Well, if the jurors can deliberate in good faith. I agree they\u2019ve been here too long.\nCOURT: Yes, I thought they\u2019d been here too long, and I came \u2014 made my mind up when you came back and \u2014 that you\u2019d been here too long.\nWell, I\u2019ll strike the withdrawal of the juror, reinstate Juror No. Twelve, and we\u2019ll continue with this tomorrow morning.\nAnd since the general opinion of the members of the jury is that they can possibly make some progress tomorrow.\nThe court then released the jury for the evening with instructions to return the following morning. All of the jurors were present at the appointed time the next day, when the following transpired:\nCOURT: Now, ladies and gentlemen, again I send you back to the jury room to deliberate. Again I tell you to make up your \u2014 to deliberate conscientiously, make up your verdict, and let your verdict speak the truth.\n(Jury deliberations continued at 9:41 A.M.)\n(Jury sent a question to the judge.)\n(Jury returned to the courtroom at 10:46 A.M.)\nCOURT: You have a question.\nFOREMAN of THE JURY: Your Honor, the jury has conferred. They\u2019ve mediated, they\u2019ve been over the case. We are at an impasse. We cannot get a unanimous decision.\nThis hasn\u2019t been an easy thing. We\u2019ve discussed it openly. We\u2019ve gone through all the evidence we have been given, both physically and in the courtroom.\nWe understand each other\u2019s opinion and each other\u2019s idea, and we are unable to give you a unanimous decision.\nCOURT: All right. Then the Court \u2014 do you think \u2014 do you feel now that further deliberations would be useless.\nForeman of the Jury: I have covered that in specific, and it\u2019s our general opinion that further deliberations will be useless.\nCOURT: All right, then. Court will withdraw Juror Number 12, then declare a mistrial.\nThe jury selected for the defendant\u2019s first trial was discharged by the trial court.\nOn 10 December 1984, the first day of the defendant\u2019s second trial on the charge of murdering her daughter, the trial court considered the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and made findings and conclusions concerning the necessity for the mistrial which had terminated the first trial four months earlier. It is readily apparent from the candid remarks of the trial court during its hearing on the defendant\u2019s motion, however, that the trial court had little independent recollection of the specific events which had led to the mistrial. Instead, the trial court was required to have the court reporter testify from the stenographic record of the prior trial.\nAfter making findings based in large part upon the court reporter\u2019s testimony, the trial court concluded that its first declaration of a mistrial during the previous trial of the defendant had been a \u201cpremature mistrial.\u201d The trial court further concluded that its comments to the jury immediately after the \u201cpremature mistrial\u201d to the effect that the jury would never be able to reach a verdict and that another jury would have to consider and decide the case did not prejudice the defendant. The trial court then concluded that its final declaration of a mistrial terminating the first trial was a necessity because the jury had been \u201chopelessly deadlocked.\u201d Based upon its findings and conclusions, the trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge against her on the ground of former jeopardy.\nIt has long been a fundamental principle of the common law of North Carolina that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. E.g., State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 124 S.E. 2d 838 (1962); State v. Prince, 63 N.C. 529 (1869); State v. Garrigues, 2 N.C. 241 (1795). This principle has also been viewed as an integral part of the \u201claw of the land\u201d guarantees currently contained in article I, section 19 of the Constitution of North Carolina. E.g., State v. Shuler, 293 N.C. 34, 235 S.E. 2d 226 (1977); State v. Crocker, 239 N.C. 446, 80 S.E. 2d 243 (1954) (decided under former art. I, \u00a7 17). However, the principle is not violated where a defendant\u2019s first trial ends with a mistrial which is declared for a manifest necessity or to serve the ends of public justice. State v. Simpson, 303 N.C. 439, 447, 279 S.E. 2d 542, 547 (1981). \u201cIt is axiomatic that a jury\u2019s failure to reach a verdict due to a deadlock is a \u2018manifest necessity\u2019 justifying the declaration of a mistrial.\u201d Id. When a mistrial is declared properly for such reasons, \u201cin legal contemplation there has been no trial.\u201d State v. Tyson, 138 N.C. 627, 629, 50 S.E. 456 (1905).\nThe decision to order a mistrial ordinarily rests with the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Odom, 316 N.C. 306, 309, 341 S.E. 2d 332, 334 (1986). Under the common law of this State, however, a trial court in a capital case has no authority to discharge the jury without the defendant\u2019s consent and hold the defendant for a second trial, absent a showing of \u201cmanifest necessity\u201d for a mistrial. Id.; State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. at 505, 124 S.E. 2d at 846-47; State v. Crocker, 239 N.C. at 449-50, 80 S.E. 2d at 246; State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 294-95, 154 S.E. 604, 614 (1930); State v. Ephraim, 19 N.C. 162, 166 (1836). The common law of North Carolina has also long been that in trials for capital felonies it is the duty of the trial court when declaring a mistrial due to manifest necessity \u201cto find the facts and set them out in the record, so that his conclusion as to the matter of law arising from the facts may be reviewed by this Court.\u201d State v. Jefferson, 66 N.C. 309 (1872). We have previously said:\nWhile it is stated repeatedly that the order of mistrial, even in capital cases, is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge, it is equally well settled that the findings of fact must be sufficient to warrant the exercise of this discretionary authority.\nState v. Crocker, 239 N.C. at 451, 80 S.E. 2d at 246.\nIn 1977 the General Assembly extended the requirement of findings of fact to apply to all cases in which a mistrial was ordered.\n\u00a7 15A-1064. Mistrial, finding of facts required.\nBefore granting a mistrial, the judge must make finding [sic] of facts with respect to the grounds for the mistrial and insert the findings in the record of the case.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1064 (1983). As pointed out in the official commentary to this statute:\nThis provision will be important when the rule against prior jeopardy prohibits retrial unless the mistrial is upon certain recognized grounds or unless the defendant requests or acquiesces in the mistrial. If the defendant requests or acquiesces in the mistrial, that finding alone should suffice.\nWe recently held that the findings required by the statute are mandatory, and that the failure to make them is error. State v. Odom, 316 N.C. at 311, 341 S.E. 2d at 335.\nWe must turn our attention then to the dispositive question of whether the findings of fact and conclusion of necessity made by the trial court in the present case, four months after the defendant\u2019s first trial, provided a sufficient basis for the mistrial. If so, the trial court\u2019s denial of the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for reasons of former jeopardy was proper. Given the peculiar facts presented on appeal in this case, however, we are constrained to hold that the trial court\u2019s findings and conclusions were not sufficient.\nThe record on appeal clearly indicates that at the time the trial court withdrew a juror and initially declared a mistrial during the defendant\u2019s first trial in August, no necessity existed for such action. The jurors immediately made this clear to the trial court by their statements to the effect that, although they were tired and would like a recess, they had made progress toward a verdict and wished to continue their deliberations. With the benefit of hindsight not available to the trial court, we now can say that had it attempted to make the required findings prior to its initial declaration of a mistrial, the trial court would have discovered the actual position of the jury. It would not then have declared a mistrial where no necessity existed.\nUpon hearing the objections of the jurors, the trial court immediately displayed commendable candor by acknowledging that it had made a mistake in declaring a mistrial. It then attempted to repair the damage by striking its withdrawal of a juror and attempting to reinstate the jury. This effort failed. We find it unnecessary to decide whether such an effort can ever be successful, however, and confine our consideration to the specific facts of this case.\nUpon initially declaring a mistrial, the trial court unfortunately stated to the jury more than once that it did not believe that the jury could ever reach a verdict and that the case would be considered at some later time by another jury. It is impossible for us to know on appeal whether these comments by the trial court encouraged one or more wavering jurors to harden their positions and refuse to join in a verdict acquitting the defendant. The trial court faced this same handicap when it attempted to make findings and conclusions four months later. It is possible, however, to know that such comments by the trial court may have encouraged the jurors to pass the difficult decision facing them to another jury, because the trial court had stated that it did not expect the present jury to ever reach a verdict.\nWe can know with certainty only that the jury returned on the morning after the initial declaration of a mistrial and, after brief deliberations, reported to the trial court that they were unable to reach a verdict. At that time the trial court again declared a mistrial without making findings or conclusions concerning any necessity for its action. Although the trial court belatedly attempted to make the required findings and conclusions after receiving the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss four months later, it is apparent that memories had dimmed by that time and that the trial court\u2019s efforts at independent recollection of the crucial events were unsuccessful.\nGiven the foregoing facts, it is clear that the initial declaration of a mistrial during the defendant\u2019s first trial on the capital charge against her was not the result of manifest necessity and, therefore, was error. We are unable to determine on the record before us whether the error in initially declaring a mistrial caused the jury to fail to reach agreement thereafter and deprived the defendant of a verdict. Therefore, we are required to hold that the trial court erred when it later denied the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of murder in the first degree against her for the reason that she had formerly been placed in jeopardy for the same offense.\nThe defendant did not object to either declaration of mistrial during her first trial. We recently held in State v. Odom, 316 N.C. 306, 341 S.E. 2d 332 (1986), a noncapital case, that a defendant is not entitled by reason of former jeopardy to dismissal of the charge against him, where he failed to object to the trial court\u2019s termination of his first trial by a declaration of mistrial. The requirement for such objections during the first trial, however, is neither expressed nor implied by the terms of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 ISA-1064 which are mandatory in nature. Like other rules requiring objections at appropriate points in a trial, the rule we announced in Odom is a court-made rule designed to prevent avoidable errors and the resulting unnecessary appeals. We conclude, however, that the same rule should not be applied in capital cases. To strictly require such objections to mistrials in capital cases would require payment of a price too high even for the commendable result of improved judicial efficiency. See generally, State v. Garrigues, 2 N.C. 241 (1795) (a brief history of the abuses leading to the acceptance in England and in North Carolina of the common law rule against double jeopardy in capital cases).\nFurther, we doubt that a great deal of judicial efficiency could be achieved by requiring objections to mistrials in capital cases. Capital cases are those cases \u201cin which the death penalty may, but need not necessarily, be imposed.\u201d State v. Barbour, 295 N.C. 66, 70, 243 S.E. 2d 380, 383 (1978), quoting with approval State v. Clark, 18 N.C. App. 621, 624, 197 S.E. 2d 605, 607 (1973). Conviction of the offense charged in such cases must result in either a sentence of death or a sentence of imprisonment for life. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-2000 (1983). Judgments in such cases are almost always appealable directly to this Court as a matter of right, and our experience has been that those convicted almost always take advantage of that right. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) (1981).\nIn any event, we have previously indicated that \u201ca charge of first degree murder carries with it the possibility of a sentence of death and must therefore be, and is, subject to additional safeguards.\u201d State v. Strickland, 307 N.C. 274, 291, 298 S.E. 2d 645, 657 (1983). Although the State\u2019s stipulation during the sentencing phase of the second trial caused the case against this defendant to lose its capital nature at that time, the case was a capital case throughout her first trial. Therefore, we conclude that in this case the defendant\u2019s failure to object to the termination of her first trial by a declaration of mistrial does not prevent her now receiving relief to which she otherwise is entitled on grounds of former jeopardy.\nWe also decline for an additional reason to apply the rule announced in Odom requiring that a defendant object to a mistrial or waive the right to present it later as a basis for an assignment of error on appeal. In Odom we emphasized that the record on appeal indicated that the defendant had been given notice and an opportunity to object to the mistrial before it was declared, and that the defendant made no argument that he was denied such opportunity. In the present case, however, both declarations of mistrial by the trial court were entered on the trial court\u2019s own motion and without prior notice or warning to the defendant. To require her to go through the formality of objecting after a mistrial had already been declared or lose her protection against double jeopardy would be a triumph of form over substance on these facts. This is particularly true since the defendant properly raised the issue of former jeopardy before the commencement of the second trial by filing her written motion to dismiss the charge against her, and it was the trial court\u2019s denial of that motion which preserved this issue for appeal.\nObviously, we have decided this case on the facts arising from the specific record before us. We wish to make it clear, however, that this opinion does not address and is not dispositive of those cases in which manifest necessity for a mistrial clearly appears in the record, such as, for example, cases involving the death or incapacity of the trial judge occurring during the trial.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the declaration of a mistrial terminating the defendant\u2019s first trial was error, and the defendant was entitled to have her motion to dismiss granted. Accordingly, the judgment entered against the defendant by the trial court on 14 December 1984 must be vacated and the defendant discharged from custody. It is so ordered.\nJudgment vacated.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by David Roy Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Cofer and Mitchell, by William L. Cofer, for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LOUISE EDITH LACHAT\nNo. 243A85\n(Filed 3 June 1986)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 34; Criminal Law \u00a7 26.8\u2014 murder prosecution \u2014 prior mistrial \u2014 no findings on necessity \u2014 double jeopardy violation\nThe trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a murder charge on the ground of former jeopardy where the court in defendant\u2019s first trial declared a mistrial when no necessity existed; the court stated more than once that it did not believe the jury could ever reach a verdict and that the case would be considered later by another jury; the jurors made clear that they would like a recess but wished to continue deliberations; the court struck its withdrawal of a juror; the jury returned the next day and resumed deliberations; a mistrial was declared when a verdict could not be reached; the trial court did not make findings or conclusions concerning any necessity for its actions; and an attempt four months later to make the required findings and conclusions was not successful. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1064.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 128; Constitutional Law \u00a7 34\u2014 murder \u2014 double jeopardy \u2014 no objection to prior mistrial \u2014 not required in capital case\nDefendant\u2019s failure to object to a mistrial during her first murder trial did not prevent her from receiving relief on double jeopardy grounds; the rule of State v. Odom, 316 N.C. 306, should not be applied in capital cases. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1064.\nAppeal by the defendant from judgment entered on 14 December 1984 by Wood, J., in Superior Court, FORSYTH County.\nThe defendant was tried on an indictment, proper in form, charging her with murder in the first degree. Upon her plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The State then stipulated that there were no aggravating factors present. The trial court concurred in that conclusion and entered judgment sentencing the defendant to imprisonment for the term of her natural life. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court as a matter of right under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a). Heard in the Supreme Court 19 November 1985.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by David Roy Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nCofer and Mitchell, by William L. Cofer, for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0073-01", "first_page_order": 109, "last_page_order": 123 }