Opinion ID: 673769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substitution of Verdict Forms

Text: 8 McFarland also contends that an improper verdict form confused the jury and produced an unreliable verdict. The trial court initially supplied the jury with an incorrect verdict form which the jury used to find McFarland guilty of inflicting injury in the perpetration of a robbery or attempted robbery. The trial court voided the verdict and furnished the jury with a correct verdict form. The jury then retired for further deliberations and subsequently found McFarland guilty of murder in the perpetration of a robbery. 9 The substitution of verdict forms did not deprive McFarland of any constitutional right. An Indiana state trial court has the duty to correct an erroneous jury verdict, provide the jury with a correct verdict form, and order the jury to retire for further deliberations. E.g., Langley v. State, 267 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Ind.1971); Limeberry v. State, 63 N.E.2d 697, 699 (Ind.1945). After a jury has been directed to return to the jury-room and amend or correct the verdict, it has the power and right to change the whole verdict, and bring in an entirely different verdict. Limeberry, 63 N.E.2d at 699 (citation omitted). This practice is consistent with that of federal courts. A federal district court has authority to require redeliberation in cases in which there is uncertainty, contingency, or ambiguity regarding the jury's verdict. United States v. Hiland, 909 F.2d 1114, 1137 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 835 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 982 (1989)); accord United States v. Mears, 614 F.2d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir.) (A jury may remedy an announced verdict which is incorrectly signed due to inadvertent error.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 945 (1980); cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(d) (authorizing a district court to direct a jury to retire for further deliberation if a poll shows a lack of unanimity). There is no evidence in the record that the trial court, after providing the jury with a correct verdict form, indicated the manner in which it felt the jury should decide. The substitution of the verdict forms also did not violate McFarland's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. If not accepted by the trial court, a verdict is not final for purposes of double jeopardy. Hiland, 909 F.2d at 1138.