party against the other, requiring credibility determinations. Wife asked repeatedly for the trial court to take the testimony of the witnesses anew. Both Husband and Wife were available to testify. Although Husband points out that both Husband and Wife were in Judge Hutt’s presence on various occasions when Judge Hutt could have observed them, the witnesses’ mere presence obviously is not the same as their testimony under oath. ¶ 26 Our supreme court stated that “[t]he right to a new trial necessarily follows [the declaration of a mistrial], as a mistrial is equivalent to no trial.” Gray, 92 Ariz. at 211, 375 P.2d at 564. This court has reasserted that position as recently as 1995. Hall Family Properties, Ltd. v. Gosnell Dev. Corp., 185 Ariz. 382, 386, 916 P.2d 1098, 1102 (App.1995) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 27 For the reasons stated in this opinion,
holding order granting motion to withdraw plea to be the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial because like a postverdict mistrial it returns case to posture it had been before trial holding that when there was no manifest necessity for aborting a trial rather than using other less drastic remedies to cure problems in the absence of defendants motion for a mistrial the granting of a mistrial is an abuse of discretion holding court had jurisdiction to consider appeal of postverdict decision granting mistrial holding that the granting of a mistrial due to a defect in the wording of the indictment did not prevent retrial even though the mistrial was declared after the jury was impaneled and sworn and over the objection of defendant holding that filing of appeal to federal circuit divests this court of jurisdiction to consider motion to stay court order pending appeal