Opinion ID: 1932173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court err in its response to the jury's request for further instructions?

Text: During the deliberations, the jurors sent a note to the court stating, one person cannot agree so, what now? The jury had only been deliberating approximately three and one-half hours at this time. The court responded by instructing the jury in the following manner: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have received your communication by way of a note. We are aware of that situation, I have communicated that to the state's attorney, to the defense attorney and to the defendant. In light of the fact that you have not been deliberating that terribly long today, we are going to allow you to return to the jury room and continue your deliberations. Take as long as you need. Thank you, you may retire to the jury room. When all twelve of you have arrived at a verdict, if you will knock we will be here whenever to receive that verdict. The defense counsel requested a mistrial due to the belief that this response by the court effectively made it clear to the jury that they were going to be there until they arrived at a verdict and that they were not to knock on the door until they reached a verdict. The jurors apparently understood the court's comments differently from the way defense counsel understood them because the jurors thereafter did knock on the door with questions before reaching a verdict. At that time the judge gave the following Sharplin instruction to them: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, as I have told you once you have retired to begin your deliberations, there are very limited questions that I can answer and that being the case I will not attempt to answer the questions, I will however read to you that which I am allowed to do at this time: I know that it is possible for honest men and women to have honest different opinions about the case but if it is possible to reconcile your differences of opinion and decide this case then you should do so. According, I remind you that the court originally instructed you that the verdict of the jury must represent the considered judgment of each juror. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate in a view of reaching an agreement if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Each of you must decide this case for yourself but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you are convinced it is erroneous but do not surrender your honest convictions as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning your verdict. At this time, please continue your deliberations. Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976). The giving of the Sharplin charge eliminated the possibility that the court coerced a verdict from the jury through its instructions. The refusal to grant a mistrial, therefore, was not error.