Case Name: William H. MORGAN v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1979-04-11
Citations: 370 So. 2d 231
Docket Number: No. 50967
Parties: William H. MORGAN v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 370
Pages: 231–235

Head Matter:
William H. MORGAN v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 50967.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
April 11, 1979.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1979.
Terry L. Jordan, Thomas L. Booker, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Susan L. Runnels, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
WALKER, Justice,
for the Court:
This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Neshoba County, Mississippi, wherein William H. Morgan was convicted of aggravated assault on a fireman. From that conviction and sentence of fifteen years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, he prosecutes this appeal. We reverse.
We would first point out that the evidence in this case as to criminal intent was extremely close and has given this Court much concern. Moreover, there is a serious question concerning the verdict itself. When the jury returned its verdict into open court, the jurors were polled and the following exchange took place between the court and Prentiss Boone, one of the jurors:
COURT: Is this your verdict? Yes.
BOONE: I guess so. . . .1 did not want to be the one to hang the jury.
COURT: Do not say anything else. Is this your verdict?
BOONE: Yes.
The court accepted the verdict of "guilty" and discharged the jury. Subsequently, defendant filed his bill of exceptions to include the above exchange in the record and he made a motion for a mistrial and a motion for leave to inquire of the juror pertaining to his answer during the polling of the jury, both of which motions were overruled.
We are of the opinion that when the individual juror expressed a doubt as to whether he was voting his convictions in response to the instructions of the court or whether he was voting the way he did, contrary to his convictions, so as not to be unpopular with his fellow jurors, the judge should not have cut the juror off from expressing his feelings. The judge should have allowed the juror to express himself and then inquired whether the juror desired additional time in which to consult with his fellow jurors, or he could have declined to poll the jury further and returned the jury for further deliberation. In either event, additional instructions appropriate to the circumstances could be given if requested by the attorneys in writing or if deemed necessary by the court.
We are of the opinion that the questionable verdict in this case requires us to rule that no verdict either of acquittal or conviction was reached and that the case must be tried anew.
By our holding, we are not saying that a dialogue between the court and jury is to be encouraged except in those unusual circumstances such as the one presented in this case. Ordinarily, as little verbal exchange as possible initiated by the jurors is desirable.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.
PATTERSON, C. J., and BOWLING, J., specially concur.
BROOM, J., and ROBERTSON, P. J., dissent.