Opinion ID: 4562226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Okay. Thank you very much.

Text: The jury did not ask any other questions. The jury then returned its verdict about ten minutes later, finding Gomez-Alas guilty of the infamous crime against nature charge. There is no record of pervasive confusion as there was in Gomez. The jury did not ask a single question of the court about what would happen if they could not reach a decision. The district court’s comments did not cast any light on the merits of the case, it did not establish a deadline for reaching an ultimate verdict, it made no allusions to the undesirability of a mistrial, it did not mention the time or expense that had been taken to try the case and it did not insist the jury reveal any numerical split. See State v. Timmons, 141 Idaho 376, 378, 109 P.3d 1118, 1120 (Ct. App. 2005). Beyond that, despite the jury, on its own volition, providing the earlier status update, the district court’s comments did not coerce minority members into surrendering their conscious conviction of honest beliefs. See id. The district court’s comments simply suggested the jury continue deliberations in an attempt to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty on the infamous crime against nature charge, if the jury so wished and was able. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gomez-Alas’ motion for a new trial. The court’s comments were neither an improper dynamite instruction nor did those comments mislead or coerce the jury. 14