Opinion ID: 2263311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The trial judge allegedly abused his discretion by failing to give defense counsel's proposed Conduct of Jury Instruction.

Text: At the prayer conference, defense counsel requested that the trial judge give a particular Conduct of Jury instruction. Defense counsel suggested that a pattern instruction existed that contained language something along the lines of you must not surrender your opinion solely for the purposes of reaching a verdict but must fairly listen to each of the comments of your fellow jurors. The trial judge explained that he used a different instruction concerning jury deliberations. The trial judge ultimately used the following instruction: Now, upon retiring to the jury room, I suggest that you carry on your discussions in an orderly way and give everyone an opportunity to express their views before taking a vote or attempting to decide the case. All the issues should be fully and fairly discussed and everyone should have a fair chance to be heard. After the instructions, the trial judge excused the jury for deliberations. Before reaching a verdict, the jury sent three questions to the trial judge. One of the questions asked for a clarification of the term reasonable doubt. After learning of this question, defense counsel again asked the trial judge for a particular Conduct of Jury instruction: Your Honor, I was also wondering if the Court thinks that the instruction that you didn't feel we needed, when I raised it before, about the conduct of a jury might help them, because it sounds as if they are not clear whether they're getting close to being logjammed, or hung. And that's the one that talks about the reasonableness of your conscience but also trying to reach a verdict. It's in the standard instructions. I'm suggesting it at this point, because it seems like it touches on where they might be. The trial judge again denied the request: The language that the defense is suggesting is the language that kind of goes along with the Allen charge. So I don't think we are quite there yet. Miller challenges the trial judge's denial of his proposed pattern Conduct of Jury instruction. The decision to give a particular jury instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and we will not reverse that decision absent an abuse of discretion. [41] We have recognized that pattern jury instructions are a most valuable resource and should be consulted in the first instance when the trial court is conducting a prayer conference and selecting the wording of its instructions. [42] We have also held, however, that pattern instructions are not mandatory because a defendant does not have a right to a particular jury instruction. [43] Rather, a defendant has an unqualified right to instructions that correctly state the law and are reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication. [44] Therefore, we focus not on whether any special words were used, but whether the instruction correctly stated the law and enabled the jury to perform its duty. [45] Here, the instruction correctly stated the law and adequately guided the jury about how to conduct their deliberations. Further, not only did the trial judge's instruction correctly state the law and enable the jury to perform its duty, but the instruction also did not materially differ from Miller's proposed instruction. In sum, Miller simply quibbles over the denial of special words he preferred. We have consistently held that no particular form of words or phrases must be used in any instruction. Moreover, the trial judge acted within his discretion by denying the second request for the instruction. Defense counsel suggested for a second time that the instruction was necessary because the jury may have been logjammed or hung. In fact, as the trial judge stated, the jury only wanted a clarification on the definition of reasonable doubt and gave no indication that they had questions about how they were to conduct their deliberations.