In what circumstances will a jury be discharged from a trial even though no verdict has been rendered?

"In some circumstances, double jeopardy bars a retrial even though no verdict has been rendered. Once jeopardy has attached, discharge of the jury without a verdict is tantamount to an acquittal and prevents a retrial, unless the defendant consented to the discharge or legal necessity required it. [Citations.]" (Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503, 516, 183 Cal.Rptr. 647, 646 P.2d 809, fn. omitted.)

For example, in People v. Ham (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 768, 86 Cal.Rptr. 906, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60, footnote 3, 98 Cal.Rptr. 217, 490 P.2d 537, the defendant was charged with three counts (armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and attempted murder). (Id. at p. 773, 86 Cal.Rptr. 906.) The jury reported that it could not reach a verdict. (Id. at p. 775, 86 Cal.Rptr. 906.) When the trial court questioned the jurors, however, the foreman disclosed that the jury had voted on only the first count. (Id. at pp. 775776, 86 Cal.Rptr. 906.) Nevertheless, the trial court discharged the jury. (Id. at p. 776, 86 Cal.Rptr. 906.)

The appellate court held that double jeopardy barred a retrial on counts two and three. (People v. Ham, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d at p. 776, 86 Cal.Rptr. 906.) "[S]ince each count was entitled to be severally and finally disposed of on its own merits, the fact that the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict as to count one and the trial judge was justified in declaring a mistrial as to that count because legal necessity required it, did not affect counts two and three upon which the

[244 Cal.App.4th 1226]