Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie BROADUX, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1981-07-14
Citations: 618 S.W.2d 649
Docket Number: No. 62739
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie BROADUX, Appellant.
Judges: RENDLEN and MORGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 618
Pages: 649–655

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie BROADUX, Appellant.
No. 62739.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
July 14, 1981.
Mary Bennett, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul R. Otto, Jay Haden, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Opinion:
HIGGINS, Judge.
Willie Broadux was convicted by a jury of robbery in the first degree and stealing a motor vehicle. The court fixed his punishment as a second offender at imprisonment for thirty years for robbery and ten years for stealing. Sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly; the terms of. imprisonment were imposed to run consecutively. The court of appeals would have affirmed the judgment but transferred the case because of conflict between its opinion and other decisions on the propriety of giving MAI-CR 1.10 after the court had been apprised by the jury that it was deadlocked eleven to one favoring conviction of robbery rather than the lesser included offense of stealing from the person. The principal question is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it gave the instruction. A second question is whether the court made proper application of the Second Offender Act. Affirmed.
Vickie Ann Stewart was accosted September 20, 1978, by a man who stuck a broken bottle into her side. The assailant, later identified as defendant, told her to give him all her money. After she did so, he forced her to accompany him to a construction area and to get into a truck. As he began to drive around the construction area, the owner of the truck and other construction workers began pursuit. Defendant stopped the truck and forced his victim to take off her clothes from the waist down. After she complied one of the construction workers rammed a backhoe into the truck and both the defendant and the victim jumped out. Defendant was apprehended and turned over to the police.
Defendant was tried on charges of first degree robbery, Count I; stealing a motor vehicle, Count II; and assault with intent to ravish with malice aforethought, Count III.
The jury began its deliberations at 11:00 a.m. During its deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note which stated: "Jury hung on robbery first degree. One juror feels robbery first degree to harsh. Remaining jurors feel stealing from a person too lenient." The judge instructed the jury: "The jury will be guided by the evidence in the case and the instructions of the court."
At 3:25 p. m. the judge informed counsel that he was going to give MAI-CR 1.10. The jury was called into the courtroom and the court asked if it had reached a verdict on any of the counts. The jury indicated that it had reached verdicts on Counts II and III. The court then asked:
Now, Mr. Foreman, I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to pay real close attention to the Court. Without telling this court how you stand on whatever Count that you have not reached a verdict on — without telling the Court how you stand on that Count with reference to guilt or non-guilt — the court does not want to know that, could you tell the Court how you stand numerically as to that Count, numerically. Eight to four, nine and three, ten and two, whatever, eleven and one.
The foreman responded, "Yes, Sir. Eleven to one." The judge then received the verdicts of guilty on Count II (robbery) and not guilty on Count III (assault), and over objections of counsel gave MAI-CR 1.10. The jury retired for further deliberations and returned at 4:40 p. m. with a verdict on Count I finding defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree.
Appellant contends the court erred in giving MAI-CR 1.10. He asserts that such action by a judge who not only is aware of the dead-locked jury's numerical split, but also which verdict is favored by the majority, constitutes reversible error because it will have a coercive impact on the minority jurors. He argues that because the earlier note indicated that the jury was split eleven to. one in favor of robbery in the first degree, the minority juror could assume that the judge was fully apprised and was asking for a unanimous vote; thus the reading of the instruction placed pressure on the one juror to conform to the majority vote because, to that juror, the instruction could mean only one thing— that the judge thought that he should reconsider his vote.
MAI — CR 1.10 was approved by the Supreme Court in 1973. The notes accompanying MAI-CR 1.10 do not limit its use; they provide that it may be given when "appropriate". The decision whether to give MAI-CR 1.10 thus rests in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 841, 844 (Mo.1974); State v. Hawkins, 581 S.W.2d 102, 104 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Jones, 545 S.W.2d 659, 666 (Mo. App.1976); State v. Jenkins, 516 S.W.2d 522, 528 (Mo.App.1974).
Appellant's contention is nothing more than speculation and is refuted by the court's instruction to the jury. Rather than to coerce a juror, MAI-CR 1.10 admonishes him that he should never "agree to a verdict that violates the instructions of the court, nor find as a fact that which under the evidence and his conscience he believes to be untrue." "Such a caution is the crux of the instruction" and is consistent with the basic duty of a juror and the fundamental concept of a fair trial. State v. Hayes, 563 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo. banc 1978). (The judgment was reversed because the trial court omitted this language in its instruction to the jury.) In addition, the jury after being sworn to try the case, is instructed by the court that: "No statement, ruling or remark that I may make during the trial is intended to indicate my opinion of what the facts are."
Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by reading MAI-CR 1.10 after receiving voluntary, unsolicited information that eleven jurors favored a verdict of robbery in the first degree and one favored stealing from the person.
State v. Sanders, 552 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1977), is one of the conflicting cases cited by the court of appeals. In that case the court held that the giving of MAI-CR 1.10 after the trial judge learned the jury was split nine to three in favor of conviction was error, and that under the facts of the case, principally that it took only ten minutes for the jury to reach a verdict after the instruction was given, the instruction was coercive and required reversal.
The second conflicting case is State v. Johnson, 610 S.W.2d 101 (Mo.App.1980). Following submission of the case, the jury deliberated for approximately three hours. The jury then sent a message to the trial judge indicating it was deadlocked ten to two for conviction. Upon receipt of the message, the court gave MAI-CR 1.10.
The court of appeals reversed upon a conclusion that State v. Holt, 592 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. banc 1980), controlled the case. In State v. Holt, supra, the jury returned to court one hour and twenty minutes after retiring to consider its verdict and reported that it was deadlocked. The court then asked the foreman to state the numerical division without saying which way the vote was. The foreman replied, "Nine guilty — ," before the court stopped him and repeated that he wanted just a numerical division. The foreman responded, "Nine and three." The court determined from questioning the jury that there was no possibility of the jury reaching a verdict, and declared a mistrial. After defendant's second trial resulted in a conviction, he contended that double jeopardy resulted from being tried a second time after the court had declared a mistrial before the jury had adequate and reasonable time to consider its verdict. The court held that the trial court acted within its sound discretion in declaring a mistrial and that appellant was not put in double jeopardy by his second trial. The Court stated:
Thanks to the foreman's blunder, the trial judge found himself in a difficult situation. Knowing that the jury was nine to three against the appellant, for the court to return them for further deliberation would be a clear signal that the judge, who knew how they stood, thought they were on the right track. It would inevitably make appellant's three jurors doubtful and apprehensive about continuing to hold out. The appellant could, with justification, contend that sending the jury back at 12:45 or 1:00 o'clock in the morning, when the judge knew they were nine to three for conviction, was a tactic to give the state more leverage to convict the appellant. It would be different if the judge knew only that the jury stood nine to three, because then his attempt to bring about a verdict by requiring further deliberation would be made without the court's knowing which side would likely be the beneficiary of his action. Under the circumstances before him, the only way the court could avoid showing favoritism to the state was to declare a mistrial. His action was not over hasty or rash.
Id. at 772. The court of appeals concluded in State v. Johnson, supra, that:
If, as in Holt, supra, the mere requirement that the jury continue deliberations is suspect, it stands to reason that the giving of MAI-CR 1.10, under like conditions, is even more suspect.
It is the opinion of this court that both the requirement of continued or further deliberations, or the giving of MAI-CR 1.10, (the so-called "hammer instruction") to a jury, subsequent to disclosure to the trial judge that the jury is deadlocked and the vote on how the jurors stand on the issue of guilt or innocence, or conviction or acquittal, constitutes prejudicial error.
Id. at 104.
MAI-CR 1.10 was not involved in State v. Holt, supra. The issue was whether the court erred in declaring a mistrial after the jury interrupted its deliberations, advised the court how it stood on the issue of guilt, and further advised that there was no possibility of reaching a verdict. The extension of State v. Holt, supra, in State v. Johnson, supra, is disapproved; and to the extent State v. Sanders, supra, is inconsistent with this opinion, it, too, is no longer to be followed.
Appellant contends also that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior conviction in Wisconsin under the Second Offender Act. At trial, outside the presence of the jury, the state introduced certified copies of a Wisconsin criminal warrant, judgment of conviction and sentence for rape, and execution of sentence in the Wisconsin State Prison. Appellant asserts that the prosecution has the burden of showing that when appellant pleaded guilty to the rape charge in Wisconsin that counsel was present, that the plea was made voluntarily and with understanding, that there was a factual basis for the plea, and that appellant waived his right to trial by jury-
This contention is answered in State v. Quinn, 594 S.W.2d 599 (Mo. banc 1980). Defendant Quinn objected to his prosecution under the Second Offender Act because it was not proved during the second trial that when he was convicted of the previous offense he had waived his right to a trial by jury and all the constitutional rights connected with it, or that the guilty plea had a factual basis. The Court rejected defendant's argument and held that the certified records presented by the state were not facially invalid, and were sufficient to support application of the Second Offender Act. The Court further noted that appellant had presented no evidence to support his challenge. Id. at 602-08.
In the present case, defendant presented no evidence of invalidity of the prior conviction and the record did not disclose any invalidity on its face. The trial court was correct in applying the Second Offender Act.
Affirmed.
RENDLEN and MORGAN, JJ., concur.
WELLIVER, J., concurs in separate concurring opinion filed.
DONNELLY, C. J., concurs and concurs in separate concurring opinion of WELLIVER, J.
SEILER, J., dissents in separate dissenting opinion filed.
BARDGETT, J., dissents and concurs in separate dissenting opinion of SEILER, J.
. The instruction reads:
"It is desirable that there be a verdict in every case. The trial of a lawsuit involves considerable time and effort, and the parties are entitled to have their rights determined once and for all in every case. The twelve jurors chosen to try this case should be as well qualified to do so as any other twelve that might hereafter be chosen. Open and frank discussion by you in your jury room of the evidence in this case may aid you in agreeing upon the facts; however, no juror should ever agree to a verdict that violates the instructions of the Court, nor find as a fact that which under the evidence and his conscience he believes to be untrue. Yet each of you should respect the opinions of your fellow jurors as you would have them respect yours, and in a spirit of tolerance and understanding endeavor to bring the deliberations of the whole jury to an agreement upon a verdict."
. The Court has drawn freely from the opinion of Reinhard, J., in reaching the same result on both issues in this case.
. The giving of instructions similar to MAI-CR 1.10, commonly referred to as "hammer" instructions, has been upheld since before the turn of the century. See, e. g., State v. Pierce, 136 Mo. 34, 37 S.W. 815 (1896). The language presently contained in MAI-CR 1.10 appears and was approved as early as 1962. See State v. Bozarth, 361 S.W.2d 819, 826 (Mo.1962).