Opinion ID: 2623891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Deliberation and Verdict

Text: At the close of the defense's case on August 3, 2005, the trial court gave the jury general instructions, including the instruction contained on page 16 of the jury instructions, which reads: A verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror, and in order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but it is your duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violating your individual judgment. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest belief as to the weight or effect of evidence for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. The trial court further instructed the jury on the elements of the offense of abuse of family or household members, as contained in HRS § 709-906, and the parental justification defense in HRS § 703-309(1). On the same day, after closing arguments, the jury deliberated for two hours before being excused for the day. After less than three hours of deliberation on the next day, August 4, 2005, the jury sent Communication No. 1, stating: We are in a deadlock decision. What next? The trial court's proposed response  Continue your deliberations. See page 16 of the instructions  was objected to by the prosecution. The prosecution, relying on State v. Fajardo, 67 Haw. 593, 699 P.2d 20 (1985), believed that the more proper response was Would more time assist you in . . . reaching a unanimous verdict? Defense counsel, on the other hand, objected to any response, contending that the jury had indicated a final position that they were deadlocked. Nevertheless, the trial court instructed the jury as proposed, i.e., Continue your deliberations. See page 16 of the jury instructions. Approximately two hours later, the jury indicated that it had reached a verdict, finding Mother guilty as charged. On August 5, 2005, before sentencing, Mother renewed her motion for judgment of acquittal, [4] which was denied. Mother then moved for a mistrial, arguing that: Your Honor, this is in response to the communication number one from the jury which indicated that, um, they were in a deadlock decision. Defense objects to the court's instructions because . . . it amounted to an Allen instruction [5] which gave the jury an impression that the deadlock was not an appropriate outcome to this case, and we believed that no further response was necessary. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial and imposed sentence of two years probation with two days' imprisonment. The judgment of conviction and sentence was entered that same day, August 5, 2005. On September 1, 2005, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal. [6]