Opinion ID: 1697707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Jury Dispersed

Text: Bigham argues that the trial court erred in not sequestering the jury and allowing the jurors to go home for the night during deliberations. However, the record shows that the trial court asked both defense counsel and the prosecution how they wanted to proceed with the jury during deliberations and that the defense agreed the jurors could go home: THE COURT: It's a little after five o'clock and I understand that we have agreed thatI'll ask the Jury if they are about to reach a verdict, in which case we'll wait. Otherwise, I understand everybody has agreed we can send them home for the night. MR. AKINS: That's fine THE COURT: Okay with the State? MS. PARK: Yes, sir THE COURT: Okay with the defendant? MR. AKINS: Yes, sir. .... THE COURT: ... Okay. The defendant is present. What do you want to do? MR. HARLLEE: I kind of like the approach you did yesterday, see if they are close or way apart and take it from there. THE COURT: Send a note in or bring them out? MR. HARLLEE: Note, please. You want to do the honors? MS. PARK: What's this one going to say? MR. HARLLEE: What did you say yesterday? MS. PARK: He didn't, he called them out. THE COURT: If you're close to reaching a verdict, we'll stay and wait for you; if not, we'll break until Friday morning. MR. HARLLEE: Okay. Sounds good. MS. PARK: You're close to reaching a verdict, we'll wait for you, otherwise MR. HARLLEE: We'll break at five. THE COURT: Break at five and come back Friday morning. MR. UNRUH: That's fine. Because the record clearly demonstrates that Bigham agreed that the jurors could be released, we find no reversible error.