Opinion ID: 1751529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: whether the trial court's instruction to the jury on the manner of its deliberations was unduly coercive, in violation of the state and federal due process clause?

Text: Mack contends that the trial court's instructions to the jury explicitly forbade any consideration of lesser-included offenses until the jury agreed unanimously to acquit the defendant of the capital charge. In pertinent part, the instruction read: The Court instructs the jury that the defendant JIMMIE MACK, has been charged with the crime of capital murder of Henry Fulton. If you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) on or about June 20, 1990, Henry Fulton was a living human being, and (2) the defendant, JIMMIE MACK, without authority of law and of his deliberate design to effect death, did kill and murder Henry Fulton, (3) while engaged in the crime of robbery of Henry Fulton, then you shall find the defendant guilty of capital murder. If the State fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of these elements, then you shall find the defendant not guilty of capital murder, and you shall proceed to consider the lesser included offense of murder of Henry Fulton. Mack claims that another instruction warned the jury that it must be uninfluenced by its power to find a lesser offense when considering the defendant's guilt of the crime of capital murder. The effect of that instruction coerced jurors who believed that Mack was only guilty of a lesser included offense into convicting Mack of the greater charge. Mack cites State v. Ferreira, 8 Haw. App. 1, 791 P.2d 407 (1990); State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213, 533 N.E.2d 286 (1988); State v. Allen, 301 Or. 35, 717 P.2d 1178 (1986); People v. Taylor, 120 Mich. App. 667, 327 N.W.2d 323 (1982); State v. Korbel, 231 Kan. 657, 647 P.2d 1301 (1982); People v. Kurtzman, 46 Cal.3d 322, 250 Cal. Rptr. 244, 758 P.2d 572 (1988); and People v. McGregor, 635 P.2d 912 (Colo. App. 1981) [4] for the proposition that it is error to require a jury to unanimously agree that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense before addressing a lesser included offense. A number of other states require an acquit first instruction. Allen, 717 P.2d at 1180 (Citing cases from several states requiring acquit first.). In a case followed by several federal circuits the Second Circuit observed that such an instruction is not faulty as a matter of law and that it has some benefits for a defendant. United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, (2nd Cir.1978). That court decided that the defendant should be given the choice but that if there was a failure to object there is no error in giving acquit first version of the lesser-included-offense instruction. Id. at 345-46. The fact is, however, that Mack did not object to this instruction at trial. The point is, therefore, waived. Cole v. State, 525 So.2d 365, 370-371, (Miss. 1987); Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 844, 846 (Miss. 1984).