Opinion ID: 2462392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the present charge

Text: The propriety of verdict-urging instructions in Texas have heretofore been governed by the decisions in Johnson, Brown and Barber, supra . As noted above, Johnson involved a charge which told the jury that it was lawful to make concessions. As also noted, the court in Johnson struck the charge on the ground that it invaded an impermissible area. In Missouri, K. & T. Ry. of Texas v. Barber, supra , the Commission of Appeals invalidated a supplemental charge as coercive because it insisted on a verdict to avoid waste of the taxpayers' money; because it insisted on a verdict to avoid personal inconvenience to the jurors; and because it failed to advise the jury not to reach a verdict if it was not the personal conviction of all those voting for it. Texas Midland R.R. v. Brown, supra , involved a charge given by a temporary judge called in to replace the trial judge who had become unavailable. The Commission of Appeals disapproved of the supplemental charge given by this judge because it was coercive to instruct the jury that it was his practice to keep juries together until they reached a verdict; that it would be a great disappointment to the judge who tried the case if the jury failed to agree; and that it would be a waste of the proceeding if no verdict was reached. It is apparent that the instruction here under review will not survive if these decisions, particularly Brown and Barber, are given full measure. In his instructions here, the trial court emphasized the cost to the taxpayers of the proceeding, and indicated his approval if the jury ended the litigation by reaching an agreement. We are not content, however, to determine the question before us by a literal extension of the language in these cases. The decision in each of these cases was rested on the particular wording used in instructions given by the trial judge after the jury reported disagreement. There was no consideration of the context in which the instructions were given, or of the timing of the instructions in relation to the later verdict. We find that several Courts of Civil Appeals have considered all of the circumstances surrounding the rendition and effect of a verdict-urging instruction when passing on its validity. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Oakley, 181 S.W. 507 (Tex. Civ.App.1916, no writ); Cornelison v. Fort Worth & R.G. Ry. Co., 403 Tex.Civ.App. 509, 103 S.W. 1186 (1907, no writ); Burgess v. Singer Mfg. Co., 30 S.W. 1110 (Tex.Civ. App.1895, no writ). See also, Youngblood v. Wilson & Cureton, 321 S.W.2d 887 (Tex.Civ. App.1959, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Hunter v. Hunter, 187 S.W. 1049 (Tex.Civ.App.1916, writ dism'd); Quigley v. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co., 142 S.W. 633 (Tex.Civ.App.1911, no writ); Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Driver, 187 S.W. 981 (Tex.Civ.App.1916, no writ). We conclude that the better rule is found in these cases. Words of instruction in one context and time frame may be coercive but in another may be no more than a permissible effort on the part of the trial judge to bring the deliberations of the jury to a conclusion in a manner fair to the litigants. Therefore, in order to test a particular charge for coerciveness, it is necessary that the charge be first broken down into its several particulars and analyzed for possible coercive statements. A possibly coercive statement will not invalidate the charge, however, unless it retains its coercive nature when the charge is then read as a whole and all of the circumstances surrounding its rendition and effect are considered.
The charge here given can be divided into five parts, each of which must be tested individually. [4] 1. This Case has been ably tried by lawyers, experienced, of long standing, and in the interest of justice, if you could end this litigation by your verdict, you should do so. This statement, taken alone, is innocent and not coercive. It does no more than call to mind again the oath of the jury and the purpose for which trials are held. The comment that the case had been ably tried by experienced lawyers could not affect the deliberations in one way or another, as it is but a neutral observation. The reference to a verdict in the interest of justice is likewise neutral and unobjectionable. 2. What is more, ending it will meet with the approval of the Court. Standing alone this statement is in direct conflict with the decision in Brown. An instruction that the court will be displeased with a non-productive jury is an implicit threat. As noted above, the jury cannot but be aware of the role of the trial judge and his power over them. This knowledge has been enhanced over the course of the trial and has been even further solidified by the realization that only the judge can allow them to end their deliberations and return to their normal affairs. For these reasons, the rule in Brown is well-based and this statement may be classified as possibly coercive. 3. I don't mean to say by that that any individual person on the jury should yield his own conscience and positive conviction, but I do mean that when you are in the jury room, you should discuss this matter among yourselves carefully and listen to each other, and try, if you can, to reach a conclusion on the issues. It is the duty of jurors to keep their minds open and free to every reasonable argument that may be presented by fellow jurors that they may arrive at the verdict which justly answers the consciences of the individuals making up the jury. A juryman should not have any pride of opinion, and should avoid hastily forming or expressing an opinion. He should not surrender any conscientious views founded upon the evidence unless convinced by his fellow jurors of his error. It was this portion of the instruction which the Court of Civil Appeals found to be violative of the rule announced in Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, supra , and followed in Reed v. Bates, 32 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Civ.App.1930, no writ). We note first that the instruction in Reed was given prior to the retirement of the jury. [5] We further note that in both Johnson and Reed the instructions specifically mentioned the right or duty of the jury to make concessions or reconcile differences. See also, Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Finklea, 155 S.W. 612 (Tex.Civ. App.1913, no writ); Texas Midland R. R. v. Byrd, 41 Tex.Civ.App. 164, 90 S.W. 185 (1905, no writ); and Cornelison v. Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. Co., 46 Tex.Civ.App. 509, 103 S.W. 1186 (Tex.Civ.App.1907, no writ). The charge here given does not possess this flaw and the cited cases are, therefore, inapposite. Moreover, this charge is not erroneous as given because by its wording it does no more than advise the jury that they are to conduct themselves in a reasonable and mature manner. The charge specifically warns against an individual juror surrendering a conscientious conviction and thereby is further insulated from the taint of coercion. Standing alone, therefore, this part of the charge is not coercive. 4. It has cost the taxpayers of Harris County considerable expense to have this case tried before a Jury over the past week. On its face, and standing alone, this statement is in direct conflict with the rulings in Barber and Brown. See also, Baldwin v. Morton, 19 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Civ. App.1929, no writ); Sunshine Oil Corp. v. Randals, 226 S.W. 1090 (Tex.Civ.App.1921, no writ); Hunter v. Hunter, 187 S.W. 1049 (Tex.Civ.App.1916, writ dism'd); Wootan v. Partridge, 39 Tex.Civ.App. 346, 87 S.W. 356 (1905, no writ); North Dallas Circuit Ry. Co. v. McCue, 35 S.W. 1080 (Tex.Civ.App. 1896, no writ). Cf. Cloudt v. Hutcherson, 175 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Civ.App.1943, writ ref'd w. o. m.); Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Finklea, 155 S.W. 612 (Tex.Civ.App.1913, no writ). See, contra, Fleck v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 191 S.W. 386 (Tex.Civ.App.1916, no writ); Leland v. Chamberlin, 120 S.W. 1040 (Tex.Civ.App.1909, no writ); Houston & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Darwin, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 219, 105 S.W. 825 (1907, writ ref'd). These decisions are no longer viable, however, given the instructions which are prescribed by Rule 226a. In accordance with that rule, prospective jurors are cautioned that failure to follow the instructions of the judge could result in a retrial of the case and the attendant waste of time and expense to the litigants and the county. A supplemental charge which merely reiterates this instruction is not coercive. Barber and Brown are overruled to this extent. [6] In so doing we do not approve or sanction such a charge; rather, we hold that if it is given, it is not, without more, coercive. 5. I am satisfied ladies and gentlemen that you have not deliberated sufficiently so that, in good conscience, I can accept a report that you cannot arrive at an agreement. It will take considerably more time before anyone can satisfy me as to that. Accordingly, I return you to your deliberations. This statement, Travelers argues, threatened the jury with indeterminate confinement and was, therefore, coercive. A genuine threat to unreasonably detain a deliberating jury would, of course, be coercive. See, e. g., North Dallas Circuit Ry. Co. v. McCue, 35 S.W. 1080 (Tex.Civ. App.1896, no writ); Cf., Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Oakley, 181 S.W. 507 (Tex. Civ.App.1916, no writ); Hunter v. Hunter, 187 S.W. 1049 (Tex.Civ.App.1916, writ dism'd); Burgess v. Singer Mfg. Co., 30 S.W. 1110 (Tex.Civ.App.1895, no writ). Where, as here, however, the charge informs the jury only that the judge cannot, consistent with his duties, discharge them, it is not coercive. As noted above, the jury is aware of the power and function of the trial judge and this portion of the charge only reminds them of his duties and functions. Again, we do not approve this portion of the instruction as a desirable element of a supplemental charge; but hold that it is not coercive.