Opinion ID: 2624402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Court's Conduct During Jury Deliberations

Text: Overstreet claims that the district court erred by allowing additional summation to the jury on the morning of the second day of deliberations. He also claims that a supplemental instruction provided to the jury midway through that second day had the improper effect of forcing the jury to reach a verdict on the attempted first-degree murder charge. This case involved an inordinate amount of contact between the court and the jury after the case had been submitted for deliberation. The jury began deliberations at 10:35 a.m. on August 3. Between that time and the announcement of the jury's verdict, the following events took place:  On August 3 at 11:15 a.m., the jury requested a readback of McCall's testimony identifying Overstreet as the driver of the Tahoe while McCall was waiting in line at the drive-thru. The jury also requested McCall's police statement and a photograph of James Walker. The court discussed these questions with the attorneys. Neither the police statement nor the photograph had been admitted into evidence, so the court informed the jury they could not request those materials and had to make its decision based on the evidence admitted. The court then requested that the court reporter read back the requested portion of McCall's testimony.  On August 3 at 1:50 p.m., the jury asked for a readback of Bauder's testimony regarding whether he saw Overstreet at the scene of the crime. The jury also requested a readback of McCall's testimony of who he saw driving at the apartment complex (scene), if it was mentioned. With the consent of both counsel, the court read back the requested portion of Bauder's testimony and informed the jury that McCall had not testified that he had seen Overstreet at the apartment complex or scene of the shooting.  On August 3 at 4:35 p.m., the jury asked for an additional reading of Bauder's testimony regarding the identification of Overstreet to clarify ... whether or not Jason Overstreet was seen at the scene or [police] substation the night of the crime. Both parties agreed to have the testimony read back a second time.  On the morning of the second day of deliberations (August 4), the court suggested that an assistant should ask the jury if additional summation would be helpful to its deliberations. The court explained that [c]ounsel were in agreement that they [the jurors ought to] be specific about what they wanted. The jury requested additional summation on the intent of the shooter and whether or not the defendant has to be driving to be found guilty of the charges. Defense counsel objected to closing arguments on the second issue since those arguments had not been presented earlier. Defense counsel also objected to the court allowing the prosecutor to split his time. The court overruled both objections, and the parties argued both issues to the jury.  On August 4 at 12:55 p.m., the jury sent a communication to the court indicating it had reached a unanimous decision on count two [aggravated assault] and [were] split on count one [attempted premeditated first-degree murder]. With the consent of both counsel, the court provided the jury with a supplemental instruction encouraging further deliberation.  On August 4 at 2:50 p.m., the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both charges.