Defendant was charged with 4 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse against 6-year-old girl. After a 3-day trial, jury, after less than 3 hours’ deliberation, communicated to court, through bailiff, that it was at an “impasse”. Without notifying State and defense, judge directed bailiff to instruct jury to continue deliberating. After total 5 hours deliberation, with many interruptions, foreman reported in open court that jury was still at an impasse. Court denied State’s and Defendant’s request to give People v. Prim instruction for juries in disagreement, and court sua sponte declared a mistrial. Defense counsel had made clear his request that trial continue, so pro forma objection to mistrial was not necessary. Judge’s ex parte jury communication led to precipitous declaration of a mistrial without considering available alternatives, and deprived Defendant of his fundamental rights and prejudiced Defendant. As judicial indiscretion, rather than manifest necessity, prompted the mistrial, reprosecution is barred. No manifest necessity for declaration of mistrial. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring.)