### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 25, 200 6

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. LEE TUR NER

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Marion County No. 7139 Thomas W. G raham , Judge

No. M2005- 02749-CCA -R3-C D - F iled March 16, 2007

J.C. M C L IN , J u d ge, d i s s en t i n g.

Be cause I conclude that the trial court committed reve rsible er ror in g iving its instructions to the jur y , I a m un a

ble to joi n the ma

jor ity ’s a ff

ir manc e of the a

pp e lla nt’ s se nte nc e a nd

re sp e c tf ull y dissent.

Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts the a pp e lla nt w a s c ha

rg e d w itha nd

c on vic te d o f m isd e me a no r a ssa ult

. On t he date of t rial, t he record reve als the j ury retire d at 3: 05 p.m. to beg in deliberation. At 5:05 p.m., the jury

sent a note to the tria l court, stating that it was dea dlocked. One minute later the jury
re tur ne d to the c ou rt

ro om, a nd

the tr ia l c ourt

ins tr uc te d th e jur

y a s f oll ow s:

L adies a nd g entlemen of

the j u ry , I understand, I

understand [sic] that y ou all are having difficulty

rea ching a unanimous dec ision in this case a nd y ou’ve be en out for a pre tty g ood while for the amount of time that we ha d the proof on, so I ’m, not going to keep y ou too much longe r, but if we acce pt a hung jury situation obviousl y

what happens is w e have to r etry the ca se bef

ore a nother jury

and so be it if y ou all can’ t ag ree , but I do want y ou to list en to the ch ar ge, thi s was in y our cha rg e bef ore, but we’ re allowed to r ead this back to a jury when they ’re having difficulty . Iwant y ou to list en to this closely , it is i mportant that y ou all deliberate with an a g ree ment of
rea ching - - with a mind of rea ching a ver dict if y ou can do so. What I am allowed to r e state to y ou

is this [:]

L adies a nd g entlemen, it is y our duty as jurors to consult with one another and to delibera te with a view of rea ching an agr eeme nt if y ou can do so w ithout viol ence to y our individual judgme nt. Each of y ou must de cide this case f or y ourself, but do so only afte r an impar

tial consideration of evidenc e with y our fe llow jurors. I n the
course of y our deliberations y ou should not hesitate to re-e x amine y our own view s and to cha

ng e y our opinion if convince d that it is erroneou s

. Bu t d o not surrende r-2-

y our honest conviction as to the weig ht or eff ect of the evidenc e solely

beca use of the op ini on of y ou r f e llo w j ur or s o r f

or the me re purp os e of

re tur nin g a ve rd ic t. So go ba ck and ta

ke anothe r look at this evidence and what somebody thinks is there or isn’t there and see if y ou can’ t bridg e the g ap, if y ou can’ t then that’s fine. We’ll call y ou back in a

littl e while a

nd if we have to we’ ll declar e a mistrial, that’s wh a t happen s whe n a

jur y c a n’ t r e a c h a

ve rd ic t and

the c a se c ou ld b e re tr ie d a g a in at another time.

Ok a y , a ll r ise a nd

a llo w the jur

y to g o b a c k to the jur

y ro om.
Some fifteen minutes late r, the jury returne d to the courtroom a nd announce d a ver dict of g uilty

. Th e a pp e lla nt c on te nd s, a nd

Ia g re e , th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s ins tr uc tio ns c on sti tut e d r e ve rs ibl e e rr or be c a us e the ins tr

uc tio ns un du ly

int ru de d u po n the e xclu siv e pr ov inc e of the jur y . T he ma jor ity seems to re ly

on State v. Bax ter, 938 S.W.2d 697 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996), whe re the trial court instructed the jury to c ontinue their deliberations after be ing inf ormed that the jury

could not rea ch
a ve rd ic t. T he c ou rt

ins tr uc te d th e jur

y a s f oll ow s:
You’ve actua lly deliberated a r elatively short period of time. That’s less than three h o u rs

. I ’m n o t -d o n ’t kn o w ho w l o n g I ’m go i n g t o h av e y o u d el i b er at e. I tco u l d go to tomorrow. At any

event, I ' m going to have y ou continue to de liberate . I ’d ask that – thi s is a n im

p o rta n t c a s e

. A lo t o f ti me a n d e f f o rt h a s b e e n p u t in to the case . I
wo uld ho pe that y ou wo uld c on tin ue a nd a tte mpt to c ome to a

ve rd ic t. I n a ny e ve nt, I ’m g oing to discha

rg e y ou to continue to deliberate.

I d. at 703. L ess than twenty -five minutes late r, the jury retu rn ed with a g uilty

verdic t. I d. On ap p ea l , a p an el o f t h i s co u rt af fi rm ed t h e c o n v i ct i o n , s t at i n g,

Her e, the c ourt, in eff

ect, or dere d the jury to c ontinue deliberating. I t did not direct
a ny of its c omm e nts to j ur or s in the min or ity , nor did it ur g e su c h jur or s to re e va luate or to ce de his or her

vi ew s to those of the majority . Simi larly , the cour t did not impose a dea dline on the jury for its deliberation.

I d. at 704.

Our s up re me c ou rt

in K e rs e y

v. Sta te , 5 25 S.W. 2d

19 3 ( Te nn . 1 97 5), off

e re d s pe c if

ic g uidance to trial courts whe n confr onted with deadloc k juries. The court noted that “[t] he rig ht of trial by jury may not be impaired or e ncumber ed with conditions which, in their pra ctical ope ration, may embar

rass or violate t he free and full enjoy ment of the rig ht.” Id

. at 144. Acc ording ly , the cour t held that when c onfronted w ith a deadloc ked jury , a trial c ourt m u s t gi ve the jury the following ins tr uc tio ns :-3-

I t is y ou r du ty , a s juro rs , to c on su lt w ithon e a no the r a nd to d e lib e rate wi th a

vie w t o re a c hin g a n a g re e me nt, if y ou c a n d o s o w ith ou t vi ole nc e to i nd ivi du a l ju dg me nt. Eac h of y ou must de cide the case for y ourself, but do so only afte r an im p artial consideration of the evid en ce wi th y our fe llow jurors. I n the cour se of y our deliberations, do not hesitate to r eexamine y our own view s and cha ng e y our opinion i f convinced it is erroneous. B ut do not surrende r y our honest convic tion as to the weig ht or eff

ect of evidenc e solely beca

use of the opinion of y our fe llow jurors, or fo r t he me re pu rp os e of

re tur nin g a ve rd ic t.

I d. at 145; see a lso Te nnessee Pattern J ury I nstruction 43.02. Our supreme c ourt expressly held that when r ender ing the se instructions “[s] trict adhe renc e is expected a nd variations wi l l n o t

be pe rm iss ibl e .” Id . (empha sis added).

I n the ca s e at ha

nd, Iperc eive a

number of e rror s in the trial court’s instruc tions to t he deadloc ked jury . First, the trial court im posed a deadline, stating “I am not g oing to ke ep y ou much l o n ger

. ” S ec o n d , t h e t ri al co u rt co m p a re d t h e d el i b er at i o n t i m e w i t h t h e l en gt h o f t h e t ri al s t at i n g, “y ou’ve be en out for a pretty g ood while for the amount of time that we ha d the proof on.” Third, the tr ia l c ou rt inf

or me d the jur

y of the c on se qu e nc e s for a fa ilure to re a c h a ver dic t, sta tin g “ we ’l l decla re a mistrial, that’s what happe ns when a jury can’ t rea ch a verdict and the case could be retrie d
a g a i n a ta n o t h e r

t i m e

. ” F i n a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u rt t o l d th e j u r y t o “ s e e i f y o u c a n ’ t b r i d g e t h e g a p

. ” In my opinion, suc h comments may have c aused the jury

to compromise its independenc e in ar riving at a ve rdict some fifte en minutes later. As our supreme court noted in Ker sey , jury instructions may not “oper ate to emba

rra ss, imp ai r an d v i olate the c onstitut ional rig ht of trial by jury . Any

undue intrusion by the t rial j udg e int o this exclusive province of t he jury , is an err or of the f irst mag nitude.” Id . at 144.

For the re asons stated a

bove, I would reve rse a

nd rema nd for a new tria l.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I

N, J UDGE