Opinion ID: 1948183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: chip smith charge

Text: During their deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court stating that they were deadlocked eleven to one for conviction and requesting guidance. The court then gave a modified version of the Chip Smith charge. [9] See State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (1881). The Chip Smith charge has been so consistently upheld by this court that the defendant does not challenge it directly. See State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 145-46, 439 A.2d 918, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052, 102 S. Ct. 596, 70 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1981), and cases cited therein. Rather, the defendant claims that when the court knows that the jury are deadlocked eleven to one for conviction, and the jury know that the judge knows the division, the Chip Smith charge is tantamount to a directed verdict of guilty. This overlooks the fact that the Chip Smith charge, while encouraging a continued search for unanimity, also stresses that each juror's vote must be his [or her] own conclusion and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusions of his [or her] fellows.... The language of the charge does not direct a verdict, but encourages it. We agree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which held, in a situation directly parallel to this one: The fact that the judge knew that there was a lone dissenter does not make the charge coercive inasmuch as the nature of the deadlock was disclosed to the Court voluntarily and without solicitation. See Bowen v. United States, 153 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1946). To hold otherwise would unnecessarily prohibit the use of the Allen charge [ [10] ] in circumstances where the judge was made aware of the numerical division of the jurors, for example, by an over-zealous juror, although he had not made the forbidden inquiry himself. United States v. Meyers, 410 F.2d 693, 697 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 835, 90 S. Ct. 93, 24 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1969); see also United States v. Robinson, 560 F.2d 507, 517-18 (2d Cir. 1977), upholding the use of the Allen charge although the judge knew of an eleven to one deadlock and knew the identity of the dissenter. The court did not err in giving the supplemental Chip Smith charge in these circumstances.