Opinion ID: 2144314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Court's Response to Question from Jurors

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in responding to a note the jury sent to the judge during its deliberations on defendant's sentence. The note consisted of the following question: What happens if we cannot reach a unanimous decision on either verdict? Defendant moved that the court respond to this inquiry by giving the jury the following instruction: According to the law, if you are not unanimous, you are to sign the verdict that says you are not unanimous and it is a no death verdict. The court overruled this motion, and instead instructed the jury in writing as follows: You have your instructions. Keep deliberating. The general rule is that the trial court has a duty to provide instructions to the jury where it has posed an explicit question or requested clarification on a point of law arising from facts about which there is doubt or confusion. People v. Childs, 159 Ill.2d 217, 228-29, 201 Ill.Dec. 102, 636 N.E.2d 534 (1994). A trial court may, however, exercise its discretion and properly decline to answer a jury's inquiries where the instructions are readily understandable and sufficiently explain the relevant law; where further instructions would serve no useful purpose or would potentially mislead the jury; when the jury's inquiry involves a question of fact; or if providing an answer would cause the court to express an opinion which would likely direct a verdict one way or another. Childs, 159 Ill.2d at 228, 201 Ill.Dec. 102, 636 N.E.2d 534. We believe that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing defendant's requested instruction and in directing the jury to continue deliberating. Immediately before beginning its deliberations on defendant's sentence, the jury was instructed as follows: You may not sign a verdict imposing a death sentence unless you unanimously vote for it. Because the instructions given to the jury concerning unanimity were readily understandable and sufficiently explained the relevant law, we hold that the court did not err in the manner in which it responded to the jury's inquiry.