Opinion ID: 1879988
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: LAW I. Whether the trial court denied Appellant the right to a fair trial, when the Circuit Judge, faced with the possibility of a deadlocked jury, without consulting defense counsel, read a modified version of the Allen Charge to the jury.

Text: The Sharplin Charge is this Court's approved alternative to the Allen Charge. In Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (1976), this Court, sua sponte, forbade the state trial courts from using the Allen Charge in any of its various forms. See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). This Court approved in its place the only jury instruction that should be given by a trial judge to a deadlocked jury. This instruction is known as the Sharplin Charge. The approved Sharplin Charge is as follows: I know that it is possible for honest men and women to have honest different opinions about the facts of a case, but if it is possible to reconcile your differences of opinion and decide this case, then you should do so. Accordingly, I remind you that the court originally instructed you that the verdict of the jury must represent the considered judgment of each juror. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate in view of reaching agreement if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you are convinced it is erroneous, but do not surrender your honest convictions as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Please continue your deliberations. Id. at 596. We have, on subsequent occasions, reversed convictions in which the trial judge deviated from the approved Sharplin Charge. In each of these cases we have held that the trial judge's deviation from the Sharplin Charge constituted reversible error because the substituted instructions were coercive in nature. Coleman v. State, 350 So.2d 55 (Miss. 1977); Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1983); Edlin v. State, 523 So.2d 42 (Miss. 1988); Brantley v. State, 610 So.2d 1139 (Miss. 1992). When dealing with instructions given to a deadlocked jury we have stated: [t]hese errors need not occur at all-ever. Sharplin very clearly delineated the two proper charges a judge could give to a deadlocked jury. Edlin, 523 So.2d at 45. In the case sub judice, the trial judge began reading the approved Sharplin Charge to the jury; he had almost finished the entire charge when he added to the Sharplin Charge the text of the Fifth Circuit Allen Charge approved in United States v. Kimmel, 777 F.2d 290 (5th Cir.1985) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1104, 106 S.Ct. 1947, 90 L.Ed.2d 357 (1986). Copies of both the Sharplin Charge and the Fifth Circuit Charge are found in Mississippi Jury Instructions: Criminal, C.116, C.117 (West 2d ed. 1992). It appears from the record that the trial judge mistakenly thought that the Fifth Circuit Allen Charge had been approved by this Court. The State argues that the Fifth Circuit's Allen Charge has been approved by the Mississippi Judicial College and therefore this Court should adopt this instruction. Accordingly, the State asks that we overrule Sharplin, and its progeny to the extent necessary to adopt the Fifth Circuit's Allen Charge. Kimmel, supra . The State argues that we should review each variation from the approved Sharplin instruction on a case by case basis. The State further suggests that this Court could review each case upon the totality of the circumstances to determine if the challenged instruction was coercive. We respectfully reject the State's invitation to adopt the Fifth Circuit's Allen Charge for use in state trial courts. The Fifth Circuit Allen Charge is not free of the problems that we have discussed in Sharplin, supra ; Coleman, supra ; Murphy, supra ; Edlin, supra ; and Brantley, supra . Therefore, use of the Fifth Circuit Allen Charge in state trial courts is not acceptable. The recommendations of the Mississippi Judicial College are certainly appreciated, however, this Court is charged with making and adopting rules of practice, procedure and evidence. Hall v. State, 539 So.2d 1338 (Miss. 1989); In Re Miss. Judicial Information System, 533 So.2d 1110 (Miss. 1988); Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975). It is our charge to adopt procedural rules and other such rules that insure that the defendant is given a fair trial. Miss. Const. art. VI, § 144; Hall v. State, 539 So.2d 1338 (Miss. 1989); Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975). Trial judges and practitioners in this state should be aware that the use of MJI C.117, found in Mississippi Jury Instructions: Criminal (West 2d ed. 1992), is not acceptable for use in Mississippi State trial courts. The publisher of this book should make the appropriate notations on this instruction to indicate that it has been expressly rejected by the Mississippi Supreme Court and should not be used in Mississippi State trial courts. Because the jury in Bolton's case initially indicated that it was deadlocked 10-2, coupled with the fact that the jury returned a guilty verdict approximately fifteen minutes after having been instructed on the improper Fifth Circuit Allen Charge, we cannot conclude with confidence that the judge's mistaken combination of the Sharplin Charge and the prohibited Fifth Circuit Allen Charge did not taint the jury. Therefore, we reverse Bolton's conviction for possession of a controlled substance and remand this case to the Jones County Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. HAWKINS, C.J., PRATHER, P.J., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur.