1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: N ove m be r 1, 201 8 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 6428 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-R es pond en t, 7 v
. 8 KELSO N L EWIS, 9 De fendant-Petitioner. 10 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 11 C hr ist in a P . A rg yr es , D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 13 B. Douglas W ood, III , A ssistant Appellate D efender 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Pe tition er
16 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 17 Marko David Hananel, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Justice. 3 { 1} In this appeal we a ddress two issues which arise when a jury is asked to render 4 a ve rd ic t on a co unt tha t inc lud es both gr ea te r an d le sse r of fe nse s and i t de ad loc ks i n 5 its delibera tions on the greater offense. First, we clarif y what is r equired of the district 6 co urt un de r Ru le 5- 611( D ) N MR A in pol lin g th e j ur

y to de te rm ine on w hic h of fe nse 7 the j ury

has deadlocked. W e hold that a district court satisfies the requirem ents und er 8 Ru le 5- 611( D ) w he n it ha s es ta bli she d a cl ear re co rd as to w hic h of fe nse the j ur

y is 9 deadlocked. Stric t com pliance with the provision s of Rule 5-611(D) is not n ecessar y 10 to fulfill its pu rpose. S econd, w e re co g nize an am bigu ity in our existin g jury 11 instructio ns regarding the order in which a j ury m u s t deliberate on counts which 12 inc lud e both gr ea te r an d le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse s. T o r es olv e thi s a m big uity a nd 13 provide gu idance to co u rt s an d litigants forthwith w e adopt an approach to jury 14 instructio ns that enables the jury to consid er bot h t h e greater and lesser offe nses 15 unde r a co unt in an y or de r it de em s ap pr opr ia te pr ovi de d it re tur n a ve rd ict o f not 16 guil t y on t he gr e a t e r of f e ns e be f or e t he c ourt m a y a c c e pt a ve r di c t on the lesser 17 in cl ud edoff

en se . 18 I. BACKGRO UND 19 { 2} T he S ta te pr ose cu te d D ef en da nt, K el son L ew is, und er af ive -c ount ind ic tm en t.2

1 The only count at issue in this appeal is C ount 1, under which D efendant w as charged 2 w ithc ri m ina l se xua l c ont ac t of am ino r (C SC M) c ontrary to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30

- 3 9- 13 ( 2003 ). A t the c los e of the St at e’ s c as e at

tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e 4 State’ s m otion to am end the CSCM charge f rom second to thi rd degree and granted 5 Defen da nt ’s m ot io n t o i nc lu de ba tt ery as a le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se un de r Co un t 1
. 6 { 3} T he j ur

y w as the re fo re ins tr

uc te d th at

the re w er e thr ee pos sib le ve rd ic ts f or 7 Count 1: guiltyof CSCM, guil ty of battery , or not gu ilty on the entire count. T he j ury 8 w a s n o tp r o v i d e dwi t h a v e r d i c t f o rm fo r an o tg u i l t y v e r d i c to n C S C M s p e c i f i c a l l y. 9 The district c ourt a lso instructed the j ury , “ If y ou sho uld have a reasonable doubt as 10 to w he the r D ef

en da nt c om

m itt ed the c ri m e of

[ CS CM ] , y ou m

ust pr oc ee d to 11 determ ine whether he com m itted the includ ed offense of batter y .” See U JI 14- 6002 12 NMRA. 13 { 4} On the third day of deliberations, the j ury sent a note to th e d istrict court 14 as kin g, “ If

w e cannot

c om e to a unanim ous de ci sio n f or Co unt 1, do w e m ove on t o 15 dis cu ss/ de ci de on the le sse r ch ar ge for Co unt 1[ ?] ” A ft er c onsu lti ng w ithde fe nse 16 co unse l and the S ta te a nd re ce ivi ng the ir c onse nsus , the dis tr ic t c ourt r es pond ed by 17 se ndi ng a

not e to the j ur

y sta tin g, “ If

y ou h av e a re as ona

ble doubt a s to the gui lt on 18 Co un t 1 , on ly the n d o you m ov e to co ns id erat io n o f th e in cl ud edoff en se of b at te ry .”3

1 { 5} T hirty

m inu te s la te r, the j ur

y se nt a se co nd n ote a ski ng, “ O n th e co unt of 2 cr im ina l se xua l con ta ct we ar e una ble to re ac h un an im ous de ci sio n of gui lty or not 3 gui lty

. S houl d w e m ove on to a less er ch ar ge of ba tte ry ?” A ga in w iththe a gr ee m en t 4 of both de fe nse co unse l an d the St at e, the dis tr ic t c ourt r es pond ed w ithanot e sta tin g, 5 “N o. H a ve y our e a c he d au nani m ou s ve r di c to n t he o t he r c ount s? ” 6 { 6} Roughl y thirty -five m inutes later , the j ury sent a note stating tha t i t h ad 7 co m ple te d it s de lib er at ion s onthe oth er c ount s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n c onf irm ed w ith 8 the j ur y tha t i t ha d c om

ple te d it s de lib er at ion s a s to Co unt 1. 9 { 7} A ft er

c al lin g th e j ur

y int o court, the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d th e fo llo w ing e xc ha nge 10 w iththe j ur

y f or ep er son: 11 TH E C O U R T : I ’ m a l so un de r st a nd i ng no ne of t he f or m s are 1 2 s i g n e da s t o C o u n t1
. A n db a s e do n t h e n o t e y o u a l l s e n t , i t ’s my 13 unde rs tandi ng tha t the re ’ s no poss ibi lity fo r j ur or ag re em en t on C ount 14 1; i s th at

c or re ct ? 15 TH E JU ROR : That is corr ect, Your H onor. 16 TH E C OU RT : And I’ m seeing heads shakin g in the j ury box th at 17 t he r e ’ s no t- - y ou ’ r e u na bl e t o r e a c h un a ni m ou s ve r di c t . I s t ha tc or r e c t [ ?] 18 T H E JU RO R: T ha t’ s c or re ct . 19 The district court stated it would declare a m istrial as to Count 1 . T he district court 20 iss ue d a n or de r fi ndi ng m an if es t ne ce ssi ty

to de cl ar e a m is tria l a s to CS CM on the4

1 basis that th e j ury

wa s unable to reach unanimou s ag re ement as to that offense. 2 D ef en da nt f ile d am oti on t o bar re tr ia l onthe gr ea te r of fe nse of C SC M o n do ubl e 3 j eo pa rdy gr ound s. D ef en da nt as se rt ed tha t the j ur y w as not pol le d re gard in g C ount 4 1 an d the re fo re the re w as not ac le ar r ec or d a s to w he the r the j ur y w as de ad loc ke d on 5 CS CM or

ba tte ry . T he dis tr ic t c ourt d en ie d De fe ndant’ s m oti on, f ind ing tha t i ts 6 pr o c e du r e w a s p r o p e r u n d e r R u l e 5
- 6 1 1 ( D ) b e c au s e i t p o l l e d t h e j u ry t h r o ugh the 7 notes exchanged during deliberations and “ reaf firm ed in open court” that “ t h e jury 8 co ul d n ot reac h a un an im ou s d eci si on as t o C ou nt 1.” 9 { 8} D ef

en da nt a ppe al ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r to the Co urt of Appe al s, c la im ing 10 that the district court failed to properly poll th e j ury on Count 1 and therefore retrial 11 on the gr ea te r ch ar ge of CS CM w oul d su

bj ec t hi m to doub le j eo pa rdy

in vio la tio n of 12 the F if

th A m en dm en t t o the U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n and A rt ic le II , S ec tio n 15 of 13 th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. Sta te v . L ew is , 201 7- N MC A -0 56, ¶ 2, 399 P. 3d 9 54. 14 The Co ur t of App eal s ren de red an op in io n affi rm in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er. Id

. ¶ 15 17. D efendant filed a petition for writ o f certiorari with this Court asking u s to review 16 th e Co ur t o f App eal s’ op in io n, wh ic h w e g r a nt edpu rs ua nt to Ru le 12 -5 02 NMRA. 17 In addition to the issue r aised by the De fendant regarding whether the district court 18 ad equa te ly

pol le d th e j ur

y a s to Co unt

1, w e as ke d th e pa rt ie s to ad dr es s th e iss ue of5

1 w he the r the dis tr ic t co urt er re d by ins tr

uc tin g th e j ur

y tha t i t c oul d no t c onsi de r the 2 le sse r inc lud ed

of fe nse of ba tte ry if it was de adloc ke d onthe gr ea te r of fe nse of 3 C S C M. Se e Sta te v. Ja de G. , 2 0 0 7
- N M S C

- 0 1 0 , ¶ 2 4 , 1 4 1 N
. M
. 2 8 4 , 1 5 4 P
. 3d 6 59 4 (acknowledging “ that as a general rule, propos ition s of law not ra ised in the trial court 5 cannot be c onsi de re d sua spon te by the ap pe lla te co urt” but tha t w e ha ve done so f or 6 “ questio ns o f a g en eral public nature af fecting the interest of the state at large” 7 (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted)). 8 II. DISC US SION 9 { 9} W e p r o c e e dt o a d d r e s s t w o i s s u e s w h i c h l i e a tt h e c o r e o f t h e j u ry ’ s i n ab i lit y 10 to ag ree o n a ve rd ic t of gui lt y or no t gu il ty on th e gr eat er char ge of CSCM
. Fi rs t, we 11 ad dr es s w he the r re tr ia l of D ef en da nt o n th e gr ea te r ch ar ge of CS CM w oul d vi ola te 1 2 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s a g a i n s td o ub l e j e o p a r d y— b e i n g t r i e dt w i c e f

o r t h e s a me 13 cr im e—

w he re the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t stri ct ly co m ply w iththe f

orm al r equir em en ts 14 of Rule 5-611(D) but clearly established on the rec ord that the jury wa s deadlocked 1 5 on C SC M. W e t h e n tu rn t o t h e s e c o n d i s s u e r e g a r d i n g h o w a d i s t r i c t c o u rt m ust 16 ins tr uc t a j ur y on the m an ne r an d or de r in w hic h it is to d el ibe ra te on a

c ount w ith 17 lesse r included o ffenses. In addressing this second issu e, we acknowledge an 18 am big uity in our e xis tin g j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns and ad dr es s th e pr obl em by pr ovi din g6

1 guid ance to courts and litigants alike. 2 A . Th e D ist ri ct C ou rt D id N ot A bu se It s Di sc re ti on By D ec lar in g a M ist ri al 3 on All Of

fense s Und er C ount 1 Where it Had Est ablished a C lear Re cord 4 Tha t the J ury Wa s Dea dl oc k ed o n the G rea ter Cha rg e o f CSCM 5 { 10} “ A do ub le jeop ard y ch al le ng e is a co n s ti tu ti on al qu es ti on of l aw whi ch we 6 reviewde novo.” State v. Swick, 2012-NMS C-018, ¶ 10, 279 P. 3d 747. Central to th at 7 questio n i n t hi s c a se i s w he t he r t he di str i c t c ourt e rr e d by de t e rm i ni ng t ha t t he j ury 8 w as de ad loc ke d onthe c ha rg e of CS CM ba se d on the not es se nt d ur ing de lib er at ion s 9 and its exchange with the jury foreper son after deliberations. W e re v i ew a d istrict 10 court’ s determ in at i o n t h at the j ury wa s deadlocked on a particular charge under a 11 co un t with gr eat er an d l es se r in cl ud edoff en se s fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. See Sta te 12 v. P hil lip s , 2017 -N MS C- 019, ¶¶ 1, 14, 396 P
. 3d 1 53; Sta te v. W ardl ow , 1981-NMS C13 029, ¶¶ 12-13 , 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527. “ A tr ial court abuses its dis cretion when 14 its dec ision is c ontrary to logic and reason.” Roselli v. Rio Cm tys. Serv. Statio n, Inc. , 15 1990 -N MS C- 018, ¶

11, 109 N
. M. 509 , 787 P
. 2d 4 28. 16 { 11} T h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t d o u b l e je o p ar dy p re v en t s re tri al o f acr i me 17 af te r a j ur y ha s re nde re d a ver dic t of eithe r guil ty or not gui lty as to tha t of fe nse ; on 18 the other hand, a def

endant m ay

be retr ied if the j ury is dea dlocked or hung on th at 19 of fen se . State v. Collier , 201 3- N MS C- 015, ¶ ¶ 11, 14, 301 P
. 3d 3 70; P hil lip s , 201 7-7

1 N MS C- 019, ¶

1. Be ca use the pr ote ct iona ga ins t do ubl e j eo pa rdy pr ev en ts a

r etri al of 2 a crim e whe re the j ur y ha s r en de re d ave rd ic t, w he n aj ur y ind ic at es tha t i t i s 3 de ad loc ke d on a count w ith le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse s the dis tr ic t cour

t m ust pol l the 4 j ury in order to clear ly establish on the record the precise offense on which the j ury 5 was de ad lo ck ed

. P hil lip s , 20 17 -NMSC -0 19 , ¶ 1. 6 Im

portantl y , the j ud ge m

ust c onf irm tha t the j ur

y did not unanim ousl y 7 agree t ha tt he d e f e nd a nt w a s no tg ui l t y

o f o ne o r m or e o f t he i ncluded 8 of

fe nse s be ca

use the co nst itu tio na l pr ote ct iona ga ins t do ubl e j eo pa rdy 9 pr ec lud es the St at e fr om pr ose cu tin g th e de fe ndant f or suc h of fe nse (s ) 10 sin ce the j ur

y ’ s un an im ous ag re em en t onave rd ict o f not gui lty 11 co nst itu te s an a cquit ta l. 12 Id

. Insuc h ac ount

w ithgr ea te r an d le sse r inc lud ed of fen se s, it c anbe dif

fi cu lt to 13 determ ine on which offense the jury is deadlocked and which offenses, if any , it has 14 unanim ousl y

a gr ee d to a cquit

. T he m an ne r fo r m ak ing thi s de te rm ina tio n is se t f orth 15 in R ule 5- 611( D ) as f

oll ow s: 16 If the j ur

y ha s be enins tr

uc te d onone or

m or e le sse r inc lud ed

of fe nse s, 17 and the jury

can n o t u n anim ouslyagree upon any of the offe nses 18 subm itt ed , the co urt shal l poll the j ur y by inquir ing a s to e ac h de gr ee of 19 the of

fe nse upo n w hic h th e j ur

y ha s be enins tr

uc te d be gin nin g w iththe 20 high est degree and, in descending order, i nqui ring as to each lesser 21 de gr ee un ti l the c ourt ha s de te rm ine d a t w ha t l ev el of the of fe nse the 22 j ury

has disagreed. If upon a poll of the j ury it is determ ined that the jury 23 ha s u na ni m ou sl y vo te d n ot g u i l ty as to an y de gr ee o f an off

en se , a 24 verdict of n ot guilt y shall be entered for that degree and for each grea ter 25 degree of the off ense.8

1 { 12} De fendant argues that because the district co urt did not “ form ally poll” the jury 2 an d ins te ad onl y que sti one d the f or ep er son as to w he the r the j ur y w as de ad loc ke d on 3 “ Co unt 1, ” the dis tr ic t co urt fa ile d to str ic tly c om ply w iththe pol lin g r equir em en t of 4 Rule 5-611(D) and thereby abused its di scretion i n d et er m i n ing th at the j ury wa s 5 d ea d l o ck ed o n t h e h i g h es t o ff en s e o f CS CM . W e d i s ag re e w i t h t h i s co n t en t i o n . We 6 co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sa tis fi ed the pur pose of Ru le 5- 611( D ) by

e sta bli shi ng 7 a cl ear re co rd

tha t the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d onCS CM a nd the re fo re did not abuse it s 8 di sc ret io n b y

de cl ari ng a m is tri al an d a ll owi ng a ret ria l of the of fen se of CSCM . As 9 aptly stated by the Court of Appeals in its review of t he issue, t o hold that the district 10 court abused its d iscretion in thi s case by failing to strictly

com ply with the form al 11 re qui re m en ts o f Ru le 5- 611( D ) w oul d “ ex al t f orm ove r subs tanc e” w he re the pur pose 12 of the r ule ha s be ensa tis fi ed

. L ew is , 201 7- N MC A -0 56, ¶ 16. 13 { 13} We h a v e r e c o g n i z e dt h a tt h e l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 5
- 6 1 1 ( D ) i s man d a t o ry, 14 concludin g that when a j ury is deadlocked on a count w ith lesser included o ffenses 15 the dis tr ic t c ourt “ m ust pol l the j uror s, be gin nin g w iththe gr ea te st o ff en se , to 16 determ ine whether they unanim ously found the defe ndant no t guiltyof any indiv idual 17 offense within the count.” P hil lip s , 2017 -N MS C- 019, ¶ 6. W e ac know le dge , a s th e 18 Co urt of

Appe al s ha s, tha t this pol lin g r equir em en t w as dr af te d ba se d si gni fi cantl y16 “ Althoug h in W ardl owthi s C ourt st at ed

tha t Ca str ill o w as ove rr

ule d to the 1 17 ex te nt tha t i t w as inc onsi ste nt w ith W ardl ow , w e nowc lari fy

th at w e pe rc ei ve no 18 inconsi stency

betwee n thos e case s.” P hil lip s , 201 7- N MS C- 019, ¶ 17 n
. 1 ( ci ta tio n 19 om itted). 9 1 on o ur hol din g in Sta te v . Ca str ill o , 197 7- N MSC-0 59, ¶ ¶ 5, 14, 90 N
. M. 608 , 566 2 P. 2d 1 146. Se e Sta te v . G arc ia , 2005 -N MC A -0 42, ¶ 26, 137 N
. M. 315, 110 P. 3d 5 31

1 3 (“ It is ap pa re nt tha t R

ule 5- 611( D ) w as li ke ly

dr af te d, f or the m ost

pa rt , ba se d onthe 4 com m ittee’ s reading of Ca str ill o .” ). 5 { 14} In Ca str ill o , w e he ld tha t the re is no m an if es t nec es sity to d ec lare am istri al on 6 the greater

offenses and the defendant m ay only be retr ied on the least includ ed 7 off e ns e w he r e “ t he r e c or d i s no tc l e a r a s t o w hi c h of

t he i nc l ud e d of

f e ns e s t he j ury 8 w as c onsi de ri ng a t the tim e of its dis ch ar ge . ” 1977 -N MS C- 059, ¶ 14. T he de fe ndant 9 in Castr ill o w as tr ie d f or f ir st- de gr ee m

ur de r w iththe le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse s of 10 s eco nd -d eg ree m

ur de r an d v ol un ta ry

m an sl au gh te r. Id

. ¶ 1
. A f t e r d e l i b e r a t i o n s, the 11 fo re pe rs on announc ed tha t the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d an d the dis tr ic t co urt de cl ar ed a 12 m is tri al

. Id

. ¶¶ 1, 14. T he district court asked for the num erica l divis ion of the jury 13 an d th e fo re pe rs on i nd ica te d th at nin e j ur or s w er e fo r ac qui tta l and thr ee w er e fo r 14 “ som e degree of conviction ,” but the court did not oth erw ise inqui re a s to which 15 ch arg e th e jury was de ad lo ck ed

. Id. ¶ 14 . Th e de fe ndant w as r etri ed , c onvi ct ed of10

1 s e co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r, an d app eal edon do ub le jeop ard y gro un ds

. Id

. ¶ 1 . We 2 concluded th at the “ record [ wa s] silent upo n which, if any, o f the specific included 3 of fe nse s th e j ur y had a gr ee d a nd u pon w hic h th e j ur

y ha d r ea ch ed

a n im pa sse ” an d 4 held that any

doub t m ust be resolved “ in favor of the liberty of the citizen. ” Id

. ¶ 14. 5 Be cau se the r ec or d w as not c le ar a s to w he the r the j ur or s di sa gr ee d onf ir st- or 6 se co nd- de gr ee m

ur de r, “ no ne ce ssi ty [w as ] m an if es t to de cl ar e a m istri al a s to tho se 7 offenses and thus j eopardy [had ] at t ached.” Id

. H ow ev er , the de fe ndant c oul d be 8 re tr ie d onthe le as t i nc lud ed of fe nse , m an sla

ught er , be ca

use the j ur

y w oul d no t have 9 announ ced it w as deadlocked had it reached a unanim ous deci s i on on that offense. 10 Id

. ¶¶ 14- 15. 11 { 15} Since Ca str ill o , w he n de ci din g w he the r a di stri ct c ourt e rr ed

in fi ndi ng 12 m an if es t ne ce ssi ty

to de cl ar e a m istri al on co unt s co nta ini ng l es se r inc lud ed of fe nse s, 13 we unequiv ocally

consider whether a

clear rec ord was e stablish ed by the district court 14 w hen de te rm ining o n w hic h of fe nse the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d. I n W

ardl ow , the 15 foreper son st ated that the j ury wa s deadlocked on the greater ch arge but wa s 16 unanim ous ag ai nst the le sse r ch ar ge . 198 1- N MS C- 029, ¶ 4. Upon que sti oni ng b y

the 17 dis tr ic t c ourt, the fo re pe rs on ex pla ine d tha t the j ur y did not be lie ve the le sse r ch ar ge 18 to be ap pr op ria te bu t h ad no t ex ecu te d th e no t gu il ty form forth atles se r ch arg e. Id

.11

1 ¶¶ 4, 12. W e co nc lud ed

inW ardlo w that because the rec ord was c lear that the j ury 2 w as de ad loc ke d onthe gr ea te r ch ar ge a nd di d not ha ve the int en t t o a cquit on the 3 le sse r, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse its dis cr et ion by

de cl ar ing am istri al a s to both 4 of fen se s. Id

. ¶¶

5, 12- 13. 5 { 16} Mor e re ce ntl y

in P hil lip s , w he n the j ur

y ind ic at ed tha t i t w as de ad loc ke d, the 6 dis tr ic t c ourt pol le d the j ur y an d re ce ive d co nf

lic tin g an d am

big uous r es pons es f

ro m 7 the j ur or s as to w he the r the y w er e de ad loc ke d on the gr ea te st ch ar ge in the cou nt. 8 2017 -N MS C- 019, ¶

¶ 11, 14. The distr ic t c ourt the n de nie d th e de fe ndant’ s r eque st 9 that the court clarify the am bigu ity in the juror s’ responses and declared a m istrial as 10 to all th e ch arg es un de r th e co un t. Id

. ¶ 12. O n appe al , w e co nc lud ed tha t, by f ai lin g 11 to c lari fy

the am big uous re spon se s to the j ur y pol l, the dis tr ic t co urt fa ile d to c re at e 12 “ a cl ear re co rd

ind ic at ing the c ri m es on w hic h th e j ur or s h ad fai le d to r ea cha 13 unanim ous ve rd ic t” a nd the re fo re “ it was an abuse of dis cr et ionf

or the c ourt t o 14 co nc lud e tha t the j ur

y w as hu ng an d th at

the re w as m an if

es t ne ce ssi ty

j ust if y ing a 15 m istrial on all of the crim es in [the count] .” Id

. ¶¶ 15- 16. 16 { 17} Ina cc or da nc e w iththi s pr ec ed en t, th e pu rp ose of the pol lin g r equir em en t of 17 Ru le 5- 611( D ) is f

or the dis tr ic t cour

t to cre at e a cle ar re co rd as to “ w hic h, if a ny , of 18 the specific included offenses the j ury had ag re ed an d upon which the j ury had12

1 reac hed an im

passe.” Ca str ill o , 1977-NMS C-059, ¶ 14. In the in stant case, the district 2 co urt’ s e xc ha nge w iththe j ur y f or ep er son “ w as de sig ne d to e lic it thi s in fo rm ation ” 3 an d s at is fie d t he pu rp os e of Ru le 5-6 11 (D). W

ardl ow , 198 1- N MS C- 029, ¶ ¶ 9, 12- 13 4 (concluding that the district court’ s questio ning of t he foreper son clearly established 5 that the jury

wa s deadlocked on the greater offense). 6 { 18} During deliberations in the present case, the j ury sent two notes ind icating that 7 it wa s deadlocked on the CSCM charge. The first stated that it wa s unable to re ach 8 unanim ity

on “ Co un t 1” and a ske d th e dis tr ic t c ourt i f it shou ld p ro ce ed to 9 co ns id erat io n o f “ th e le ss er ch arg e fo r Co un t 1 .” The second no te expressly stated 10 that the jury

wa s unable to reach unanim ous agreem en t “ [o] n the count o f cr im inal 11 sexual c ontact” and again asked the district c ourt if it shou ld proce ed to the “ lesser 12 ch ar ge of

ba tte ry . ” T he n, af

te r the j ur y ind ic at ed tha t i t w as f

ini she d de lib er at ing on 13 the c ount , the j ur

y f or ep er son co nf

irm ed in ope n court tha t the re w as no p oss ibi lity 14 fo r unanim ous ag re em en t onCo unt 1. T he se e xc ha nge s r en de r the r ec or d c le ar —the 15 jury w as de ad lo ck edon th e g reat er ch arg e o f CSC M. 16 { 19} D ef

en da nt c ont en ds tha t the le ve l of off en se on wh ic h the j ur

y w as ult im at el y 17 de ad loc ke d is unclear be ca use the j ur

y c ont inu ed

to de lib er at e fo r ap pr oxi m at el y 18 thi rty -f

ive m inu te s a ft er

se ndi ng the not es a nd the re fo re the not es do n ot r ef le ct the13

1 j ur y ’ s f ina l posi tio n. W e ag re e w ith D ef en da nt tha t a not e se nt d

ur ing de lib er at ion s 2 “ m er el y

pr ovi de s asna

psho t of the j ur y ’ s thi nki ng pa rtw ay

thr oughde lib er at ion s and 3 doe s no t gi ve ade fi nit ive an sw er as to its fi na l di spos iti on o f ea chc ri m e w ith in [ the 4 count]. ” P hil lip s , 201 7- N MS C- 019, ¶ 18. F or thi s r ea son, w e he ld i n P hil lip s tha t a 5 note sent the day

b ef o re t he conclusio n of deliberations statin g that the jury wa s 6 de ad loc ke d onaspe ci fi c ch ar ge did not es ta bli sh a cl ear re co rd as to w hic h of fe nse 7 th e jury was de ad lo ck ed at th e ti m e o f it s d is ch arg e. Id

. ¶¶ 7, 18. Co nsi ste nt w ithour 8 hol din g in P hil lip s , the notes in this case do not in and of them selves establish a clear 9 reco rd of th e jury’ s po si ti on at th e ti m e o f i t s d i s c h a rg e. Se e id. ¶

18 ( “ In de ed , the 1 0 j u ry’ s n o t e w o u l d n o t b e s u f f i c i e n t e v e n i f i t h a d b e e n s e n tt o t h e c o u rto n t h e s a me 11 af te rn oon as the j ur

y pol l be ca

use onc e the c ourt c ondu ct ed the j ur y pol l, the r es ult s 12 of tha t po ll w er e the ult im at e ex pr es sio n of the j ur y ’s ver dic t a t the ti m e of it s 13 dis ch ar ge . ”)

. H ow ev er , unl ike the not es in P hil lip s , the not es he re w er e se nt c los e in 14 tim e to the co nc lus ion of j ur y de lib er at ion s an d thu s pr ovi de m eanin gf ul c ont ex t t o 15 the f or ep er son’ s c onf

irm at ionsho rt ly

the re a f t e r th at th e r e w a s “ no p oss ibi lity

f or j ur or 16 agreem ent on Coun t 1.” W e re cognize, as did the Court of Appeals, that the notes 17 “ co nsi ste ntl y

r ef er to CS CM a s ‘ Co unt

1’ a nd b at te ry

a s th e ‘ le sse r ch ar ge ’ or 18 ‘ included o ffense. ’ ” Le wi s , 2 0 1 7 -N M CA -0 5 6 , ¶1 0 . I n t h i s co n t ex t , t h e f o re p er s o n ’s14

1 co nf irm at iontha t the j ur

y w as una ble to re ac h unani m ous ag re em en t on“ Co unt 1” 2 wa s plainlyin refe rence to the greater c harge of CS CM. 3 { 20} T he re fo re , unl ike in P hil lip s a nd Ca str ill o , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc our se w ith 4 the fo r e p e r s o n i n o p e n c o u rt , a l o n g w i t h t h e s ub s t a n c e a n dt i m i n g o f t h e n o t e s, 5 established a clear r ecord “ as to which of the included offenses the j ury wa s 6 co nsidering at the tim e of its discharge.” P hil lip s , 201 7- N MS C- 019, ¶ 18 ( quot ing 7 Ca str ill o , 1977 -N MS C- 059, ¶ 14)

. Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly e sta bli she d on 8 the record that the j ury

wa s deadlocked on CSCM, the purpos e of Rule 5-611(D) w as 9 satisfied. W e theref

ore hold that it w as not an abuse of discretion for the district court 10 to c onclud e that the j ury wa s deadlocked on the crim e of CS CM and that there w as 11 m an ife st ne ces si ty j us ti fy in g a m is tri al on all co un ts . P hil lip s , 201 7- N MS C- 019, ¶ 16. 12 W e af firm the district court’ s denial of Def endant’ s m otion to bar re trial of the grea ter 13 offense of C SCM. 14 B. A Jur y Should B e Instru cted That ItMay D eliberate on th e Greater and 15 Lesser Of

fense s Und er a C ount in An y Orde r It Sees Fit, butMu st R etur n 16 a Not Gu ilty Ver dict on the Greate r Off ense B efore the Court May Ac cept 17 A ny V er di cton t he Le sse r Of fe ns e 18 { 21} W e ne xt tur

n to the iss ue of howadis tr ic t c ourt m ust ins tr uc t a j ur y r eg ar din g 19 its de lib er at ion s onc oun ts w ithle sse r inc lud ed of fe nse s, r ec ogni zi ng tha t U JI s 14

-15 The issue of w hether the district court in this case erred byinstructing the j ury 2 16 that it could not proceed to consideration of t he lesser off ense of battery

if deadlocked 17 on the gr ea te r of

fe nse of CS CM is m oot

a s to D ef en da nt. D ef

en da nt did n ot o bj ec t t o 18 thi s in str

uc tio n a nd i t wo uld the re fo re be re vie w ed fo r funda m en ta l e rr or , the r em edy 19 fo r whi ch is a ne w tri al

. Sta te v . Cu nni ngha m , 200 0-NMS C-009, ¶¶ 8 , 10, 128 N.M. 20 711, 998 P.2d 176 . W e have concluded that Def endant m ay

be retr ied on all offenses 21 under Count 1 wit h o u t violatin g dou ble j eopardy . T herefor e, granting a new tria l 15 1 6002 and 14-601 2 NMRAare ambi guou s and incon sistent with oth er uniform j ury 2 ins tr uc tio ns r eg ar din g w he the r a j ur y m ay pr oc ee d to co nsi de ra tio n of ale sse r of

fe nse 3 if de ad loc ke d onthe gr ea te r of fe nse . Be ca

use iss ue s r eg ar din g th is am bi gu ity a nd 4 incon sis te nc y ar e lik el y to ar ise an d im pa ct cr im ina l de fe ndants in the fu tu re, we 5 ad dr es s th is i ssu e sua

spo nte a s a“ que sti on[ ] of a ge ne ra l pu

bli c na tur e af

fe ct ing the 6 interest of t he state at large.” Se e Sta te v . Co nsau l , 201 4- N MS C- 030, ¶ ¶ 27- 28, 332 7 P. 3d 8 50 ( quot ing Ja de G. , 200 7- N MS C- 010, ¶ 24) (r ai sin g sua spon te the iss ue of 8 w he the r the int en t r equirem en ts i n th e U JI s f or c hil d a buse w er e co nsi ste nt w ith 9 le gis la tiv e int en t, in pa rt be ca use of the is su e’ s po te nti al to “ im pa ct [] pe opl e an d 10 ev en ts a ll ac ro ss o ur

sta te , a nd the f

undam en ta l rig hts of

c ri m ina l de fe ndants in 11 pa rt ic ular” ); cf

. Sta te v . P ari

sh , 1994 -N MS C- 073, ¶¶ 4, 15- 20, 118 N
. M. 39, 878 P
. 2d 12 988 (c onclud ing that UJIs which w ere capable of m ore than one interpretation when 13 co nsi de re d inthe c ont ex t of the ins tr uc tio ns a s aw hol e w er e am big uous a nd the ir

use 14 constitu ted reversible er ror). 221 wou ld no t p ro vi de Defen da nt wit h an y act ua l re li ef an d t he is su e is m oo t. Gunaji v. 22 M ac ias , 200 1- N MS C- 028, ¶ 9, 130 N
. M. 734 , 31 P
. 3d 1 008. F or thi s r ea son, w e w ill 23 not address whether the district court’ s instructio ns in t h i s case c onsti tuted 24 funda m en ta l e rr or

but w ill ins te ad

a ddr es s t he am

big uity a nd i nc onsi ste nc y

in our 25 UJIs a s a m atter of public im portance. 16 1 { 22} Be fo re c om

m en ci ng i ts d el ibe ra tio ns, the j ur y w as ins tr uc te d on tw o oc ca sio ns 2 by the dis tr ic t co ur t th at it

sho uld pr oc ee d to c onsi de ra tio n of the le sse r of

fe nse of 3 ba tte ry i f i t h a d r e a s o n ab l e d o ub t a s t o D e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i l t o f t h e g r e a t e r o f f e nse of 4 CS CM
. F i r s t , c o n s i s t e n tw i t h U J I 1 4

- 6 0 1 2 , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtg a v e t h e f o l l o w i ng 5 ins tr uc tio ns r eg ar din g C ount

1: 6 [I ] n th is c as e as to the c ha rg e of c ri m ina l se xua l c ont ac t of am ino r 7 co nta ine d inCo unt 1 the re a re thr ee pos sib le ve rd ic ts. 8 O ne , gui lty of c ri m ina l se xua l c ont ac t of am ino r ch ild

und er the 9 a g e o f

1 3 ; o r , t w o , g u i l t y o f

t h e b a t t e ry; o r , t h r e e , n o tg u i l t y. 10 You m

ust cons ider eac h of these crim es. Y ou sho uld be sure that 11 y ou f

ull y und er stand the e le m en ts o f ea chc ri m e be fo re y ou d el ibe ra te 12 furthe r. Y ou w ill the n c onsi de r w he the r the d efen da nt i s gu ilty of the 13 cr im e of

c ri m ina l se xua l c ont ac t of am in or . I f y ou f

ind him gui lty of 14 tha t c ri m e, the n th at is the onl y

f orm of ve rd ic t w hic h is to be sig ne d. 15 If

y ou h av e a reas onabl e doub t a s to his gui lt of tha t c ri m e, y ou 16 would go on [to the] crim e of b at t er y . I f y ou find hi m guiltyof that 17 cr im e, tha t i s th e onl y f orm of ve rd ic t w hic h sh oul d be sig ne d. Bu t i f y ou 18 ha ve ar ea sona

ble doubt a s to his gui lt of the cr im e of ba tte ry , the n y ou 1 9 s h o u l df

i n dh i m n o tg u i l t y a n ds i g n o n l y t h e n o tg u i l t y f o rm. 20 Y ou m ay not f ind th e de fe ndant g uil ty

of m or e than on e of

the17

1 fo re goi ng c ri m es . I f y ou h av e re as ona ble doubt a s to w he ther the 2 defendant com

m itted any

one of the crim es, y ou m ust determ ine that 3 he ’ s no t gu il tyof tha t c ri m e. I f y ou f

ind him not gui lty of a ll of the se 4 cr im es in Co unt 1, y ou m

ust r et ur n ave rd ic t of

not gui lty

a s to thi s 5 co unt . 6 Se co nd, c onsi ste nt w ith U JI 14- 6002 , the dis tr ic t c ourt gave the f oll ow ing ins tr

uc tio n 7 be tw ee n th e el em en ts o f CS CM an d ba tte ry : “ If y ou s houl d have ar ea sona ble doubt 8 as to whether the def

endant comm itted the crim e of cr im inal sexual contac t o f a 9 m ino r, y ou m

ust pr oc ee d to de te rm ine w he the r he c om m itt ed the inc lud ed

of fe nse of 10 ba tt ery. ” 11 { 23} Having rec eived these instr uc t i on s, the j ur

y w a s ne ve r

the l e ss uncertain whether 12 it w as pe rm itt ed to pr oc ee d to co nsi de ra tio n of the le sse r of fe nse of ba tte ry w he n it 13 wa s unable to agree on whether D efendant w as guiltyof the greate r offe nse of CSCM 14 an d a ske d th e co urt ho w to pr oc ee d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e ins tr uc tio n 15 m odeled on UJI 14-6012 , r equiring th e j ury to proceed to consideration o f the lesser 16 of fe nse if it ha d “ re as ona

ble doubt” as to D ef

en da nt’ s guilt on the gr ea te r of fe nse , a nd 17 unde rs too d “ re as ona

ble do ub t” to m ean th e fi ndi ng o f D ef en da nt n ot g uil ty

of the 18 gr ea te r of

fe nse . G ive n this unde rs tandi ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nstru ct ed the j ur y not to 19 pr oc ee d to c onsi de ra tio n of the le sse r of

fe nse of ba tte ry if it w as de ad loc ke d onthe 20 greater

offense of C SCM.18

1 { 24} Ne ither UJI 14-6002 nor 14-601 2 directly address i n t h ei r text or com m ittee 2 co m m en tary w he the r a j ur

y m ay pr oc ee d to co nsi de ra tio n of a le sse r of fe nse if it is 3 unable to agree on the greater offense. Both instructio ns sim ply state that the j ury 4 m ust pr oc ee d to co nsi de ra tio n of the le sse r of

fe nse if it ha s “ re as ona

ble doubt” of

the 5 de fe ndant’ s gu ilt

of th e gr ea te r of

fe nse . U JI 14- 6002 ; U JI 14- 6012
. S om e co urts i n 6 sis te r sta te s have int er

pr et ed sim ilar langua ge to re qui re the j ur y to unanim ousl y

f ind 7 the de fe ndant not guil ty on the gr ea te r of fe nse be fo re pr oc ee din g to the le sse r, w hil e 8 oth er c ourts h av e co nc luded that sim ilar ins tr uc tio ns a llo w j ur ie s to pr oc ee d to 9 co ns i d e r t h e les se r of

fen se if u na bl e to ag ree o n t he gre at er o ffen se . See H awes v. 10 Sta te , 201 4 WY 127 , ¶ ¶ 16- 18, 335 P
. 3d 1 073, 1078 (W y o. 2014 ) (unde rs tandi ng a 11 sim ilar ins tr

uc tio n to onl y

a llo w the j ur

y to co nsi de r the le sse r of

fe nse if it fo und the 12 de fe ndant n ot g uil ty

of the gr ea te r of

fe nse ); but

se e Sta te v . T

hom as , 40 O hio S t. 3d 13 213, 533 N
. E
. 2d 2 86, 292 -9 3 ( 1988 ) (co nc luding tha t si m ilar ins tr uc tio ns d id n ot 14 require the j ury

to unani m o u s l y a cquit the defendant of the greater off ense before 15 considering the lesser off ense, but also concludin g that such instructions were “ rather 1 6 am big u o u s ” a n ds h o u l di n s t e a de x p r e s s l y i n s t r u c tt h e j u ry

t h a ti tm a y

c o n s i d e r t he 17 lesser offe nse if unable to agree on the greater offense). 18 { 25} H er e, the distr ic t c ourt’ s un de rs tandi ng o f U JI 14- 6012 w as ar ea sona ble19

1 int er pret at ion. Be ca

use U JI 14- 6012 sta te s bo th tha t the j ur y m ust a cquit the 2 defendant of an offense if it has “ reasonable doub t” that the defendant com m itted that 3 offense and that the j ury shoul d proceed to consideration o f the lesser offense if it has 4 “ re as ona

ble doubt” of de fe ndant’ s gui lt on the gr ea te r of fe nse , it w as r ea sona

ble to 5 int er pr et the ins tr uc tio n to a llow t he jury to pro ce ed to the le sse r of

fe nse onl y

if it 6 fi nds the de fe ndant n ot g uil ty of the gr ea te r of

fe nse . H ow ev er , w he n di sc uss ing 7 earl ie r ve rs ion s of the se U JI s we ha ve sta te d that a j ur y m ust pr oc ee d to c onsi de r the 8 le sse r of

fe nse if it unanim ousl y ac qui ts the de fe ndant o r is unable to re ac h un an im ity 9 on th e g reat er o ffen se . Ca str ill o , 197 7- N MS C- 059, ¶ 6 (dis cu ssi ng NM SA195 3, U JI 10 50. 01, 50. 12 (19 75) (V ol. 6, 2d Re pl. , Part 1, 197 5 P oc ke t S upp. ))

. A ddi tio na lly , our 11 cu rr en t j ur

y ins tr uc tio n for co nsi de ra tio n of coun ts w ithva ri ous de gr ee s of hom ic ide 12 expressly

states that a ju ry s h ould proceed to consider the lesser offe nse if, after 13 reasonable deliberation, it is unable to agree that the defe ndant is g uiltyof the greate r 14 of fe nse . U JI 14- 250 N MR

A ; se e als o State v . V

igi l , 199 0- N MS C- 066, ¶

¶ 15- 16, 110 1 5 N.M . 2 5 4 , 7 9 4 P. 2 d7 2 8 (c o n cl u d i n g t h a t , i n a h o m i ci d e c as e, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 16 instructio ns that a “ verdict m u s t be unanim ous” did not lead “ j urors to believe that 17 the y ha d to be unanim ousl y in fav or of a cquit ta l onthe f

ir st- de gr ee m

ur de r ch ar ge 18 before they

could m ove on to consider lesse r ch arges, ” contrary to UJI 14-250).20

1 Si m ilar to the hom ic ide ins tr uc tio ns, the ins tr

uc tio n f or c onsi de ra tio n of

c hil d a buse 2 re sul tin g inthe de ath of a ch ild unde r tw el ve , U JI 14- 625 N MR A , a llo w s th e j ur

y to 3 proceed to consider the lesser offe nse if it is unable to agree on the greater offense. 4 { 26} Fo r the se r ea sons , w e co nc lud e tha t U JI s 14- 6002 an d 14 -6 012 ar e sus ce pti ble 5 to m or e than on e re as ona ble int er pr et at ion

. O n on e h and, the langua ge of U JI s 14

- 6 60 02 an d 14 -6 012 supp orts the int er pr et at ionof

the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th e ins tant 7 case—that the j ury

m ust acquit on the greater

offense bef

ore considering the lesser 8 included o ffense. On the other hand, our prior j urisprudence and the language of UJIs 9 14- 250 an d 14 -6 25 s uppo rt adif fe re nt, y et equa lly ra tio na l, int er pr et at ion —tha t the 10 j ur y m ay pr oc ee d to co nsi de r a le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse if , a ft er r ea sona ble e ff orts, it 11 is unable to agree on the greater of fense. 12 { 27} D es pit e our

pr ev iou s a cc ep tanc e of

j ur y ins tr ucti on s whi cha llo w j ur ie s to 13 proceed to consider lesser o ffenses if they are unable to agree on the greater offense, 14 w e ha ve ne ve r co nduc te d a n inde ptha na ly sis of th e le ga l and p oli cy r at ion al es f

or 15 an d a ga in st su ch in st ru ct io ns . Se e, e . g. , Ca str ill o , 19 77 -NMSC-0 59, ¶ 6; P hil lip s , 16 2017 -N MSC- 019, ¶ 4. W e have sim pl y acknowledged that such ins tructions are 17 co ns is te nt wit h a po li cy of r efra in in g fr om

in te rfer en ce wi th jury de li be rat io ns . Sta te 18 v. Ch am be rla in , 1991-NMS C-094, ¶¶ 33-34, 112 N
. M. 723, 819 P. 2d 67 3 (“ The c ourt21

1 is not p erm itted to in terfe re w ith the jury ’ s discretion to d eliberate.

. . . [T ] he approach 2 taken by a j ur

y i n r e a c hi ng a de c i si on sh ou l d no t be c a l l e d i nt o qu e st i on . W e agree 3 w iththe pol ic y

tha t di sc our ag es , a nd i n m ost ins tanc es pr ohi bit s, a nyinquir y or 4 intrusio n into the j ury

room .” (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted)). 5 { 28} T he re fo re , the dis pa rate , y et equa lly ra tio na l, int er pr et at ion s of

U JI s 14 -6 002 6 an d 14 -6 012 co m

pe l us to co nsi de r the “ w ide div er ge nc e of opi nio n onthe iss ue of 7 the order

a nd m a nn e r i n w hi c h at r i a l c ourti ns t r uc t s aj ur y t o c on si de r

a n i nd i c t ed 8 offense together w ith any appropriate lesser-included offenses. ” Sta te v . D av is , 266 9 S. W.3 d8 9 6 , 9 0 5 (T en n . 2 0 0 8 ) ( i n t er n al qu o t at i o n m ar k s an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). We 10 do s o inor de r to p ro vid e cl ari ty and, pe rh ap s m or e im portantl y , c onsi ste nc y

in the 11 instructio ns to juries re gardless of the ty pe of offe nse or offenses at issue in anygiven 12 tr ia l. 13 1. Types of t ransitional instruc tions 14 { 29} T he re a re at le as t four ty pe s of “ tr an sit ion al ins tr

uc tio n” use d by

va ri ous 15 juri sd ic ti on s. Id

. ; see g en er ally Ja y

M. Zit te r, W

he n Sh ould J

ury ’s D el ibe rat ion 16 P roc ee d fr om Ch arge d O ffe nse to Lesse r-In cl ude d O ffe nse , 26 A
. L
. R. 5th603 ( 1995 ) 17 (c oll ec tin g a nd d isc uss ing c as es c onsi de ri ng how a j ur y shou ld b e ins tr

uc te d onhow 18 and when to proceed to consideration of lesser incl u ded offenses). First, several22

1 j ur isd ic tio ns h av e con cl ude d that “ ac qui t fir st” ins tr uc tio ns, w hic h do not

a llo w the 2 j ur y to co nsi de r the le sse r of fe nse unl es s it

ha s de te rm ine d th at

the de fe ndant i s no t 3 gui lty of the gr ea te r of

fe nse , a re pr ope r or

pe rm iss ible. Se e, e.g. , United States v. 4 M oc ci a , 681 F
. 2d 6 1, 64 ( 1st Ci r. 198 2) ; Li ndse

y v. Sta te , 456 So. 2d 383 , 387 (A la. 5 Cri m . App . 19 83 ), aff’d , E x P ar t e L indsey , 456 S o. 2d 3 93 ( A la

. 198 4) ; State v. 6 Sawyer , 227 Co nn. 566 , 630 A
. 2d 1 064, 107 1- 75 ( 1993 ); Sta te v . R aude baug h , 124 7 Id ah o 758, 864 P. 2d 596, 600- 01 (1993) ; F ulg ham v . Sta te , 46 S o. 3d 3 15, 329 -3 0 8 (M iss

. 201 0) ; Sta te v . T ay lor , 141 N
. H
. 89, 677 A
. 2d 1093 , 1097 -9 8 ( 1996 ); P eo ple 9 v. Bo et tcher , 69 N
. Y
. 2d 1 74, 505 N
. E
. 2d 5 94, 598 ( 1987 ); Sta te v . D aul ton , 518 10 N
. W
. 2d 7 19, 720 -2 3 ( N
. D
. 199 4) ; Sta te v . T urni dge , 359 O r. 364 , 374 P
. 3d 8 53, 930

- 11 32 (20 16) ; Co m m onw ea lth v . H art , 3 8 8 P a . S up e r . 4 8 4 , 5 6 5 A
. 2 d1 2 1 2 , 1 216- 20 12 (1 989) ; D av is , 266 S
. W
. 3d a t 90 7- 08; Hawes , 201 4 WY 127 , ¶ ¶ 16- 18. 13 { 30} Se co nd, tw o j ur isd ic tio ns h av e ad opt ed a“ m odi fi ed

a cquit f irst ” ins tr uc tio n, 14 al low ing aj ur

y to de lib er at e in the or de r it se es f it but r equi rin g that it ac qui t the 15 de fen da nt of th e gr eat er offen se be fo re retu rn in g a ve rd ic t o n t he les se r of fen se . See 16 D resne k v. Sta te , 69 7 P.2d 10 59 , 10 60 -6 4 (Alas ka Ct . App . 19 85 ), aff’d , 718 P
. 2d 1 56 17 (A la ska

198 6) ; P eo

ple v . Ku rtz m an , 46 C al

. 3d 3 22, 250 Ca l. Rp tr . 244 , 758 P
. 2d 5 72, 18 576- 80 (1 988) (i n ba nk)

. T he se ins tr uc tio ns “ dis tin gui sh b etw ee n th e j ur y ’ s r igh t t o23

1 deliberate about the elem ents of a lesser- included offe nse before dec iding the greater 2 of fe nse a nd the pr ec lus ionon r et ur nin g ave rd ic t onthe le sser -inc lud ed of fe nse 3 without decidin g the greater offense. ” Dresnek , 697 P
. 2d a t 10 64. 4 { 31} Thi rd , s ev er al j ur isd ic tio ns h av e ad opt ed “ una ble to ag re e” or

“ re as ona ble 5 ef fo rt ” ins tr uc tio ns, w hic h al low the j ur y to co nsi de r a le sse r of

fe nse if it is una

ble to 6 ag ree on th e g reat er o ffen se aft er rea so na bl e d el ib erat io n. Se e, e . g. , Sta te v . L eB lan c , 7 186 A ri z. 437 , 924 P
. 2d 4 41, 442-4 4 ( 1996 ) (i n banc ); P eo ple v . R ic hard

son , 184 8 P. 3d 755, 764 n. 7 ( Co lo. 200 8) ( enba nc ); M orr is v

. Sta te , 303 G a. 192, 811 S. E
. 2d 9 321, 327 ( 2018 ); Sta te v . F erre ira , 8 Haw. App
. 1, 79 1 P .2d 40 7, 4 08 -0 9 (1 99 0) , ce rt. 10 denied , 71 H aw . 668 , 833 P
. 2d 9 01 ( 1990 ); State v . Parker , 301 K an . 556 , 344 P
. 3d 11 363, 368 ( 2015 ); Co m m onw ea lth v . F igu er oa , 468 Ma ss. 204 , 9 N
. E
. 3d 8 12, 827 -3 1 12 (2 014) ; Pe ople v. H

andl ey , 415 Mich. 356 , 329 N. W .2d 7 10, 7 12 (1982 ) (per curiam ); 13 Ti siu s v . Sta te , 183 S
. W
. 3d 2 07, 216 -1 7 ( Mo. 200 6) ( enba nc ); G re en v . Sta te , 119 14 N ev . 542 , 80 P
. 3d 9 3, 95- 97 ( 2003 ) (p er c ur ia m ); State v. M

ays , 158 N
. C. App. 563 , 15 58 2 S .E.2d36 0, 3 67 -6 8 (2 00 3) , cert. denied , 357 N.C. 510, 588 S.E .2d 379 (2003 ); 16 Th om as , 533 N
. E
. 2d a t 29 1- 93; G raha m v. St ate , 200 1 O K CR 18, ¶ ¶ 4- 7, 27 P
. 3d 17 1026 , 102 7- 28; B arr ios v . Sta te , 283 S
. W
. 3d 3 48, 353 ( T ex . Cr im

. App. 200 9) ; Sta te 18 v. Gardner , 7 8 9 P
. 2 d2 7 3 , 2 8 3

- 8 4 ( U t a h 1 9 8 9) ; St at e v. W rig ht , 154 V t. 512 , 58124

1 A
. 2d 7 20, 723 -2 4 ( 1989 ); State v. L aban owski , 117 W as h. 2d 405, 816 P. 2d 2 6, 35- 36 2 (1 991) ( enba nc ); Sta te v. T ruax , 151 W is. 2d 3 54, 444 N
. W
. 2d 4 32, 436 -3 7 ( Ct
. App. 3 19 89 ), cert. denied , 446 N. W .2d 286 (1989 ). 4 { 32} Fina lly , af

ewj ur isd ic tio ns u se the “ opt ion al appr oa ch , ” w hic h a llo w s th e 5 de fen da nt to ch oo se be twee n a n a cq ui t fi rs t o r an un ab le to ag ree i ns tru ct io n. See, 6 e. g. , Mont. Code Ann. § 46-16-60 7(3) (2017); Jones v. United States , 620 A
. 2d 2 49, 7 252 (D

. C. Ci r. 199 3) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . J

ac ks on , 726 F. 2d 1466 , 146 9 (9th Cir. 1984 ); 8 Catches v. United States , 582 F. 2d 453, 459 (8th Cir. 1978 ); U nit ed Sta tes v . T

sana s , 9 572 F. 2d 3 40, 3 46 ( 2d C ir

. 197 8)

. T he c ourts o f se ve ra l st at es ha ve r ej ec te d th is 10 approach on the groun ds that the choice of transitional ins truction “ shou ld be based 11 o n legislative and judicial policy , not eac h defendant’ s or each tr ial cour t ’s 12 discretion.” F

erre ira , 791 P
. 2d a t 40 9; accord Laban owski , 816 P
. 2d a t 35 ; D aul ton , 13 518 N
. W
. 2d at 722; Sawyer , 630 A
. 2d a t 10 71; Gree n , 80 P. 3d at 96. W e agre e that 14 the c hoi ce of

tr an sit ion al in str

uc tio n sh oul d no t be le ft to the dis cr et ionof

the 15 de fe ndant and d istri ct c ourt in ea ch ca se , a nd a cc or din gly r ej ec t D ef

en da nt’ s r eque st 16 tha t w e ad opt

the opt ion al appr oa ch

. W e ther ef or e tur n to c onsi de r the va ri ous 17 ar gum en ts f

or a nd a ga ins t a cquit

f ir st, una ble to ag re e, a nd m odi fi ed a cquit f ir st 18 ins tr uc tio ns.25

1 2. We adopt the m odified acq uit f irst appr oach 2 { 33} C o u rt s a d o p t i n g a c q u i tf i r s ti n s t r u c t i o n s h a v e g e n e r a l l y

c o n s i d e r e dt h es e 3 ins tr uc tio ns t o pr om ote the j ur y ’ s du ty to care fu lly

de lib erat e on the gr ea te r ch ar ge 4 an d re du ce t he ch an ces o f t h e jury com pr om is in g o n t he les se r of fen se . Se e, e . g. , 5 Sawyer , 630 A
. 2d a t 10 73 ( “ A nythi ng le ss [tha n an ac qui t fi rs t ins tr uc tio n] dil ute s th e 6 ri ght of the sta te an d the de fe ndant to have the j ur y giv e its und ivi de d a tte nti on and 7 m ost se ri ous de lib er at ion s to the of fe nse w ithw hic h th e de fe ndant i s c ha rg ed a nd 8 fl ie s inthe f

ac e of the unanim ity

r equir em en t[
. ] ”) ; Boettcher , 5 0 5 N.E .2 dat 5 9 7 (“[I]t 9 is the duty

of the j ur y not to re ac h c om

pr om ise ve rd ic ts ba se d onsy m pa thy f or the 10 de fe ndant o r to a

ppe as e hol dout s, but

to re nde r a j ust ve rd ic t by ap ply ing the f ac ts i t 11 fi nds to the law it is c ha rg ed

. ”) ; D aul ton , 518 N
. W
. 2d a t 72 2 ( “ T he pr im ar y dif fi cu lty 1 2 w i t h t h e u n ab l e t o a g r e e i n s t r u c t i o n i s i td i l u t e s t h e r e q u i r e m e n to f u n a n i m i t y

a nd 13 en co ur ag es the j ur

y to by pa ss the c ha rg ed

of fe nse o n it s wayto a co m pr om ise 14 ve rd ic t[
. ] ”) ; D av is , 266 S
. W
. 3d a t 90 7- 08 ( co nc lud ing tha t an ac qui t fi rs t i nstru ct ion 15 pr om ot es str

uc tur ed a nd thor oughde lib er at ion s, a ssu re s r el ia ble ve rd ic ts, a nd 16 “ reduces the risk of a c om prom ise verdict”). 17 { 34} O n th e oth er ha nd , se ve ra l c ourts c onsi de r una ble to ag re e ins tr

uc tio ns t o 18 re duc e the r isk

of a hung j ur

y , m istri al , an d subs eque nt re tr ia l by al low ing j ur ie s th e26

1 fr ee dom “ to bette r gauge the f it be tw ee n th e sta te ’ s pr oof a nd the of

fe nse s be ing 2 considered.” Le

B lan c , 924 P. 2d a t 44 2- 43; see also Green , 80 P
. 3d a t 96 ( “ U se of the 3 ‘ una ble to ag re e’ ins tr

uc tio n r ed

uc es the ri sk o f co m

pr om ise ve rd ic ts b y

e nabli ng the 4 fi nde rs of fa ct to be tte r gauge the fi t be tw ee n the ev ide nc e ad duc ed at trial an d t he 5 of fe nse s be ing c onsi de re d. T he ins tr uc tio n al so re duc es the ri sk of hun g j ur ie s and the 6 signi ficant costs involved w ith retrial. ”); T hom as , 533 N
. E
. 2d a t 29 2 ( “ W e re j ec t the 7 ‘ acquittal first’ instruction . . . because such an instruction encroaches on the provin ce 8 of the j ur y to de ci de que sti ons of

f ac t and t o a rr ive a t a

ve rd ic t base d ona ll the 9 ev ide nc e be fo re it

a nd a ll the va ri ous of

fens es on w hic h it

ha s be enpr ope rl y 10 instructed.”); Labano wski , 816 P. 2d at 34 (conclud ing th at an “ u n ab l e to agree ” 1 1 ins tru c t i o n “ a l l o w s t h e j u r y t o c o rr e l a t e m o r e c l o s e l y t h e c r i m i n a l a c t s w ith the 12 pa rt ic ular cr im ina l co nvi ct ion ” an d “ pr om ote s the ef fi ci en t use of

j udi ci al r es our ce s” 13 by reducing the likelih ood o f m istrials). 14 { 35} Fo r the se r ea sons , the U nit ed S ta te s C ourt of

Appe al s fo r the S ec ond Ci rc uit , 15 in an of

te n c ite d c as e, c onc lud ed

tha t both a cq

uit f ir st and u nable to ag re e ins tr uc tio ns 16 ha ve a dvanta ge s and d isa dvanta ge s f or both th e sta te a nd the de fe ndant: 1 7 [A n ac q u i t

fi rs ti n s t ru ct i o n ] ha s t h e mer i t , f ro m t h e G o v e r n men t ’s 1 8 sta ndp o i n t , o f

t e n d i n g t o a v o i dt h e d a n g e r t h a tt h e j u ry

w i l l not 19 ad equa te ly

dis ch ar ge it s dut ie s w ithr es pe ct to the gr ea te r of

fe nse , a nd27

1 i n s t ea dwi l l m o v e t o o qu i ck l y t o t h e l es s ero n e. Fr o m t h e d ef en d an t ’s 2 standpo int , it

m ay pr ev en t an y

c onvi ct iona t a ll; aj ur

y una ble e ith er to 3 convict or acquit on the greater charge will not be able to reach a lesser 4 ch ar ge on w hic h it m igh t have be enable to ag re e. Bu t i t e nta ils 5 dis adva nta ge s to both si de s a s w el l: By ins ist ing on u na nim ity

w ith 6 re spe ct

to ac qui tta l on the gr ea te r ch ar ge be fo re the j ur y c anm ove to the 7 le sse r, it

m ay prev en t the G ove rn m en t f ro m obt ai nin g a

c onvi ct ionon 8 the le sse r ch ar ge tha t w oul d othe rw ise ha ve be en fo rthc om ing an d thus 9 re qui re the ex pe nse of ar etri al

. I t a lso pr es en ts d an ge rs to the de fe ndant. 10 If the j ury is heavily for convictio n on the greater offe n s e, d issenters 11 favoring the le sser m ay throw in the spong e ra ther than cause a m istrial 1 2 th a t w o u l d l e a v e t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h n o c o n v i c t i o n a t a l l , a l t h o ugh the 13 j ury

m ight h ave re ached sincere and unanim ous agreem ent with respect 14 to the lesser charge. 15 A n in str

uc tio n pe rm itt ing the j ur y to m ove onto the le sse r of fe nse if 16 after

all rea sonable efforts it is unable to r each a verdict on the greater 17 lik ew ise ha s a dvant ages a nd d isa dvanta ge s to both si de s th e m ir ro r 18 im ages of th ose associated with [ac quit first ins tructions]. It fa cilitates 19 the G ove rn m en t’ s c ha nc es of ge tti ng a

c on vi ct ionf

or som ethin g, 20 althoug h at t he risk of n ot getting the one that it prefers. And it relieves 21 the de fe ndant o f be ing co nvi ct ed on the gr ea te r ch ar ge j ust be ca use the 22 j ur

y w ish es to av oid

am istri al , but

a t the r isk

of ac onvi ct ionon the 23 le sse r ch ar ge w hic h m igh t no t have oc cu rr ed if the j ur y , by be ing una

ble 24 to agree to acquit on the greater, had never been able to reach the lesser

. 25 Ts anas , 572 F. 2d at 346 (footnote om itted). 26 { 36} Upon reviewof these considerations, we rec ogni ze that the unable to agree 27 ap pr oa cha dopt ed by

se ve ra l j ur isd ic tio ns and a ppr ove d by

U JI s 14 -2 50 and 1 4- 625 28 ha s th e pr ac tic al be ne fi t of re duc ing the lik el iho od o f j ur y de ad loc k, m istri al , a nd the 29 si gn ifi can t co st of r et ria l. See Labanowski , 816 P. 2d at 34. How ever, we are28

1 co nc er ne d th at und er a n un ab le to ag re e ins tr

uc tio n the j ur

y m ay co nvi ct a de fe ndant 2 of a lesser offense without unanim ously acquitting him or her of the greater offense, 3 thereby barring retr ial of an offe nse on whic h t he defendant has not actually been 4 fo un d n ot gu il ty. Se e Ca str illo , 1977-NMS C-059, ¶ 6 (“ Either an acquittal or a 5 con v i ct i o n of a lesser included o ffense bar s further prosecution for the greate r 6 of fe nse . ”)

. T his out co m e de pr ive s th e St at e of a fi na l r es olu tio n onthe gr ea te r of fe nse 7 be fo re b arri ng ret ria l o f th atoff en se . See B oettcher , 505 N
. E
. 2d a t 597 (c onc lud ing 8 tha t “ una

ble to ag re e” instr

uc tio ns “ ha ve ade le te ri ous ef fe ct ” on the sta te be ca

use 9 the y m ay pr ev en t r etri al of

a n off en se on wh ic h the j ur

y did not f ind the de fe ndant n ot 10 gui lty ); see also Dresnek , 697 P
. 2d a t 10 63-64 (ex pres sin g c onc er n th at und er the 11 optiona l a

ppr oa chaj ur

y m ay f ee l r equir ed

to re tur n ave rd ic t onthe le sse r of fe nse 12 even if it w as deadlocked on th e grea ter off ense). 13 { 37} Due to these concer ns, w e ar e persuaded that the m odified acquit fir st approach 14 of Ala ska and California is the m ost soun d approach. F irst, bec ause under m odified 15 ac qui t f

ir st i nstru ct ion s th e j ur

y m ay de lib er at e as it se es f

it, thi s a ppr oa chis 16 co ns is te nt wit h o urst at edpo li cy of n ot in te rfer in g wi th jury de li b erat io ns . See 17 Ch am berl ain , 199 1- N MS C- 094, ¶ 34. S ec ond, by

r equir ing the j ur

y to re tur n a 18 v er d i ct o f n ot gui lty

on the greater off

ense before r eturning a verdict on the lesser29

1 offense, this approach does not deprive the State of a final resolution on the greater 2 of fe nse . Fo r the se re as ons, w e agr ee w ith the Su pr em e Court of Ca lif

or nia tha t this 3 ap pr oa chis “ adeq ua te to p ro te ct both th e de fe ndant’ s in te re st i n no t i m pr ope rl y 4 re str ic tin g th e j ur

y ’ s de lib er at ion s and the [ sta te ’ s] int er es t i n r equir ing the jury t o 5 gr ap pl e wit h t he pr os pe ct of [th e] de fen da nt ’s gu il t of the gr eat es t o ffen se ch arg ed .” 6 Ku rtz m an , 758 P
. 2d a t 58 0. 7 { 38} Fo r the af

or em en tio ne d r ea sons , w e ad opt m odi fi ed a cquit f ir st i nstru ct ion s f

or 8 all counts with lesser included offenses and r efer this issue to our Crim inal Uniform 9 Jur y I nstru ct ion s C om

m itt ee to revi se our

j ur y ins tr uc tio ns t o c onf

orm w ithour 10 hol din g. T he se ins tr

uc tio ns s houl d m ak e cl ear th at the j ur y ha s th e dis cr et ionto 11 ch oose the m an ne r an d or de r in w hic h it de lib er at es on the of

fe nse s in the c ount

but 12 tha t it m

ust re tur n a unanim ous ve rd ic t of

not gui lty on the gr ea te r of

fe nse be fo re the 13 c o u r t may accep t a v erd ic t o n t he les se r of fen se . See C A L JI C 1 7. 10
. W e f ur t he r 14 re co m m en d th at the c om m itt ee c onsi de r ad opt ing pa rt ia l ve rd ic t f orm s, a llo w ing the 15 j ur y to ind ic at e that i t un an im ousl y f ind s the de fe ndant not gui lty on a gr ea te r of

fe nse 16 ev enif

de ad loc ke d onale sser o ff en se , a s c onsi ste nt w iththe m odi fi ed a cquit f ir st 17 ap pr oa ch , see CAL JIC 8.75, 17.10, 1 7.12, and the requirem ent under Ca str ill o that 18 th e distr ic t c ourt c re at e a cl ear re co rd a s to w hic h of

fe nse s th e j ur

y ha s a gr ee d and30

1 w hic h it has de ad loc ke d. Se e Ca str ill o , 197 7- N MS C- 059, ¶ ¶ 5, 14 ( “ H en ce fo rth, 2 when a j ury

annou nces its inabili ty

to reac h a verdict in cases involvin g includ ed 3 of fe nse s, the tr ia l c ourt w ill be r equir ed to subm it ve rd ic t f

orm s to th e jur

y to 4 de te rm ine if

it ha s unanim ousl y vot ed fo r ac qui tta l ona ny of the inc lud ed

of fe nse s. 5 The jury m ay

th en be po ll edwit h re ga rdto an y ve rd ic t t hu s re tu rn ed .”). 6 III. CON CLU SION 7 { 39} Be ca

use the dis tr ic t co urt’ s qu es tio nin g of the f or ep er son, in the c ont ex t of the 8 notes sent by the j ury during deliberations, established a clear re cord that the j ury wa s 9 de ad loc ke d onthe c ha rg e of CS CM at the ti m e of

it s di sc ha rg e, w e co nc lud e tha t the 10 district court did n ot abuse its d iscretion in findin g m ani fe s t necessity to declare a 1 1 m i s t ri al o n b o t h ch ar g es u n d erCo u n t1 . Ac co rd i n g l y, we a f f i r m t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 12 denial of De fendant’ s m otion to bar retr ial on the greater off ense of CSC M. 13 { 40} F ur

the r m or e , t o a ddre ss the am

bigu ity and incons istency

in our current uniform 14 j ur y ins tr uc tio ns, w e ad opt

a co nsi ste nt app ro ac h to the co nsi de ra tio n of c ount s w ith 15 le sse r inc luded of

fenses

. H en ce fo rth, j ur ie s sh al l be ins tr uc te d th at

the y ha ve 16 dis cr et ionto ch oose the or de r in w hic h the y de lib er at e on the of fe nse s w ith in a co unt 17 but th at t h ey

m ay not return a verdict on a lesser included offense unless they 18 unanim ouslyfind the defendant not gu ilty on the greater off

ense.31

1 { 41} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice 4 WE CO NCUR:

5 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 GAR Y L . C LINGM AN , Just ice