Title: Cabell v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

461 N.E.2d 1101 (1984)
John A. CABELL, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 183 S 24.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 18, 1984.
John D. Clouse, Michael C. Keating, Laurie A. Baiden, Evansville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Jay Rodia, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
The defendant, John A. Cabell, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3 (Burns 1979 Repl.) and was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of twenty years. This direct appeal presents two issues, one of which requires us to reverse and remand for a new trial.
After the jurors had deliberated for almost twelve hours, the trial court, on its own motion, had them return to the courtroom. The foreman stated that the jury had not been able to reach a verdict and that she did not feel they would be able to reach a verdict even with further deliberations. The trial court then read the following Supplemental Instruction to the jury even though it had not been read to the jury with the original instructions and the defendant objected to it:
This instruction is a modified Allen charge. Allen v. United States, (1896) 164 U.S. 492, 17 S. Ct. 154, 41 L. Ed. 528. In Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107, we explicitly disapproved the giving of Allen charges and reversed the defendant's conviction when that instruction was given over defendant's objection. We explained:
424 N.E.2d  at 111.
In subsequent cases, we have followed that holding and explained that the ruling in Lewis is not limited to Allen charges. Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) 426 N.E.2d 1314; Wallace v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 34. In Crowdus, we stated:
Crowdus v. State, 431 N.E.2d  at 798.
We have recognized one limited exception to this rule which applies when a trial judge is confronted with a question from a jury which has commenced deliberations. We found that in certain circumstances the trial court may:
Jenkins v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1002, 1003. The instant case does not fall within this exception.
The trial court erred in giving the additional Supplemental Instruction in this case after deliberations had commenced and the jury had indicated that they were deadlocked.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PRENTICE and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.