State of Arizona, Appellee v. Philip John Martin, Appellant. — Gould, J., Concurring

Summary

This concurring opinion agrees that the court properly applied the existing reasonable-efforts framework but warns that the framework creates serious double-jeopardy uncertainty when a jury reports it is unable to agree on a greater offense and then reaches a lesser-offense verdict. The concurrence urges openness to reconsidering that framework because it may prevent the prosecution from obtaining a clear mistrial ruling before jeopardy bars further proceedings.