Opinion ID: 1430751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the allen charge to the jury

Text: After approximately fifteen hours of deliberation over a two day period, the jury informed the trial judge in writing that it could not reach a unanimous verdict because the evidence is not sufficient to return a verdict of guilty of murder. In the presence of counsel, the court suggested the possibility of giving an Allen instruction. See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). In a reversal of roles, the prosecutor objected to the instruction because of its potential for prejudice; defense counsel emphatically requested that the instruction be given, stating that he had no objections to the instruction as written. The Allen instruction was given to the jury, including the admonition that the jurors should not surrender [their] honest convictions because of other opinions or for the purpose of returning a verdict. Following six more hours of deliberation, the jury returned the instant guilty verdict. Appellant contends that the giving of the Allen instruction was coercive and mandates reversal of his conviction. We cannot agree. In the past, this Court has reluctantly approved the Allen charge if it clearly informs the jury that each member has a duty to adhere conscientiously to his or her own honest opinion, and if it avoids creating the impression that there is anything improper, questionable or contrary to good conscience for a juror to create a mistrial. Ransey v. State, 95 Nev. 364, 366, 594 P.2d 1157, 1158 (1979) (and cases cited therein). The instant jury was so informed. Moreover, the failure to object to the giving of the instruction will ordinarily preclude appellate review. See Annot., 100 A.L.R.2d 177, 211 § 8. Here, appellant's counsel adamantly insisted that the instruction be given. Finally, the six hours of jury deliberation following the charge belies the argument that the instruction was unduly coercive in this case. See United States v. Beattie, 613 F.2d 762 (9th Cir.1980). We note, however, that the language of the instant instruction, as well as its applicability to this case, approaches the limits of acceptability. In this regard, we adopt the recent comments of Chief Judge Browning, concurring in U.S. v. Beattie, supra, at 766. A barely acceptable instruction, once sanctioned, tends to become the new norm. By this process, an instruction of dubious merit continues to deteriorate. To halt this deterioration of the now normative Allen charge and to limit the charge's potential for coercion, we hereby expressly approve the American Bar Association's version of the Allen charge; the instruction is set out in the margin for the future guidance of our district courts. [2]