Opinion ID: 1613455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether robert was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to poll the jurors individually upon his request

Text: ¶ 22. Robert claims he was denied a fair trial because his attorney requested individual polling of the jury as to the verdict, and the trial judge denied the request. Before the jury returned to the courtroom after reaching a verdict, the judge said to the parties, [m]y intent is to bring them back here into the jury box, accept the verdict and make sure it is unanimous by polling the Jury, and if it is, then discharge the jurors. Defense counsel then expressed his preference that the jurors be polled individually and not as a group, but the judge interrupted him and stated the court's procedure: Our procedure is to ask each of them to raise their hands if it is in fact their verdict. I'll have them do that and hold their hands up, and I'll give you lawyers opportunity to personally verify that it is the unanimous verdict of all 12. I don't necessarily care about calling them out name by name. ¶ 23. Once the jury returned to the courtroom and delivered the verdict, the judge asked the jurors to raise their hands if the verdict read was in fact their verdict. All twelve jurors raised their hands, and the judge asked that it be put in the record that it was a unanimous verdict of all 12 jurors.... Defense counsel then stated to the judge, I thought you said that we could ask each one of them. The judge replied, [n]o, sir, I said earlier on the record that I would ask them all to raise their hands. If you would like me to do it again, I would be happy to do that. I counted 12 hands held high.... The judge then asked the jurors to raise their hands again, which they did, and asked both sides if they had any questions. Neither side had questions, and so the jurors were excused. ¶ 24. In support of his contention that the judge improperly refused to poll the jurors individually and therefore denied him a fair trial, Robert cites Edwards v. State, 615 So.2d 590 (Miss.1993), arguing that it is implicit that each member should be polled individually when requested. However, in Edwards, the issue was directed at the timing of the polling. There was no discussion as to what constitutes proper polling. There, the jury was polled individually as soon as requested, but the request was not made until after sentencing which the defendant argued deprived him of any `meaningful' right or opportunity to poll the jury. Edwards, 615 So.2d at 599. We have recognized that the purpose of polling a jury is to give each juror an opportunity, before the verdict is recorded, to declare in open court his assent to the verdict which the foreman has returned and thus to enable the court and the parties to ascertain with certainty that a unanimous verdict has in fact been reached and that no juror has been coerced or induced to agree to a verdict to which he has not fully assented Id. (citing Miranda v. United States, 255 F.2d 9, 17 (1st Cir.1958)). The right to poll the jury is explicit in Rule 3.10 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court. Rule 3.10 specifically provides that after the verdict is read in open court in the presence of the jury, [t]he court shall inquire if either party desires to poll the jury, or the court may on its own motion poll the jury. URCCC 3.10. See also State v. Taylor, 544 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Miss.1989). Further, [i]f the court ... polls the jury, each juror shall be asked by the court if the verdict rendered is that juror's verdict. Id. We rejected Edwards's argument because the jurors were in fact polled individually upon request, and no prejudice was shown as to the timing of the poll. Here, to make the record clear, it would have been better to put the individual responses on the record. Even though the better method was not used, the error is harmless at best in this case.