Opinion ID: 1889713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the court's instructions regarding a mistrial

Text: After the jurors had deliberated some four hours, they returned with several questions, the second of which was: What happens if there is a hung jury? The Court replied: Well, I'm going to answer your first question firstI mean your second question first. Under our legal system in the event that you people cannot reach a unanimous verdict it would be incumbent upon this Court to declare a mistrial, which in effect means that approximately six to eight to twelve weeks from now another jury would be empaneled, another jury would hear the exact same charge that you heard and then it would be submitted to that jury. Okay? Although he did not object at trial, the petitioner argued on appeal that it was plain error for the court not to instruct the jury of the possibility that Tomlin could have been reindicted and tried for non-capital murder. It is true that the option mentioned by the petitioner would have been open to the State in the event of a mistrial. For that matter, the State could have dropped all charges against the defendant. We fail to see how the omission could have prejudiced the defendant. Looking at the instruction from Tomlin's vantage point when the question was asked, an instruction which fully set out all alternatives open to the State, including the State's option to nol-pros the case, would have been as likely to harm as to benefit the defendant. Petitioner cannot, after waiving his objection at trial, bring the matter up on appeal. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed. APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF AUGUST 28, 1981 WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur. ALMON, J., not sitting.