Opinion ID: 1351343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: The jury's question concerning changes in the law.

Text: During the penalty deliberations the jury asked the judge, Can the law be changed if Jackson Daniels was given life without possibility of parole? The judge conferred with counsel and decided to tell the jury that both a verdict of life without possibility of parole and a verdict of death could be changed. When he called in the jury, however, the judge first answered another question. Reminded of the last question, he said, I'm almost reluctant to answer that question. The foreperson responded, If answering the final question will present any problems, we respectfully withdraw the question. The judge said, All right. I'll not answer it then. (65) Defendant argues that the court should have realized that the jury had been speculating on the possibility of changes in the law, and should have instructed them sua sponte not to consider such matters. But more is required for reversible error. The judge did not instruct erroneously, did not refuse to answer any question the jurors wanted answered, and did not refuse to give any instruction requested by the defendant. A judge may infer from a jury's question that the jurors are engaged in improper speculation and try to head it off by a sua sponte instruction, but in light of the jury's withdrawal of their inquiry concerning changes in the law, we do not believe he had a duty to do so.