Opinion ID: 1180863
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Discharge the Penalty Jury

Text: (86) Defendant and amicus curiae assert the court erred in failing to discharge the penalty jury after the jury informed the court that it was unable to reach a verdict. On December 18, 1980, the penalty trial began and was submitted to the jury on the evidence presented during the guilt phase. That afternoon the jury sent the court a note which read, The jury is unable to reach a verdict. The court brought in the jury and stated, This has been a long trial. At the time I received your note you had been deliberating a little more than one hour on the subject of penalty. The penalty in a case of this type is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree. In my opinion you have not been deliberating long enough to discuss the matter fully and to understand fully each other's viewpoint. [¶] It has been a tiring day, an emotionally charged day. I am going to send you home now and ask you to return tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock and to resume deliberations at that time. Defendant insists the jury should have been discharged once it stated it was unable to reach a verdict. Section 1140 provides, Except as provided by law, the jury cannot be discharged after the cause is submitted to them until they have agreed upon their verdict and rendered it in open court, unless ... at the expiration of such time as the court may deem proper, it satisfactorily appears that there is no reasonable probability that the jury can agree. We have held that the trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining whether there is a reasonable probability of agreement. ( People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 775 [230 Cal. Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113].) In Rodriguez, the trial court denied a motion for mistrial after the jury, on the 18th day of deliberations, notified the court that it was hopelessly deadlocked. The jury had sent similar messages on four previous occasions. The court requested the numerical division and then instructed the jury to continue deliberating. The jury reached a verdict four days later. We found that, in light of the length of the trial, the amount of evidence, and the complexity of the issues, the court could reasonably conclude that his direction of further deliberations would be perceived as a means of enabling jurors to enhance their understanding of the case rather than as mere pressure to reach a verdict on the basis of matters already discussed and considered. ( Id., at p. 776.) We therefore concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the jury to continue deliberations. In this case, the jury had been deliberating for only one hour, not eighteen days, before informing the judge that it could not reach a verdict. It appears clear to us that, as the trial court noted, the jury had not been deliberating for a time sufficient to discuss the matter fully and to understand fully each other's viewpoint. The court's statement to the jury was in no way coercive and there existed a reasonable probability that the jury could reach a verdict  one way or the other  if it deliberated further. We therefore find no error in the court's action.