Opinion ID: 533847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court's Instruction to Continue Deliberations

Text: 6 The record shows that at about 2:00 p.m. on May 19, 1982, after a short discussion between the trial judge and counsel, lawyers for the state and for defendant Thomas began their opening arguments regarding sentencing. At the conclusion of defense counsel's opening argument, there being no evidence beyond what was presented at trial, the prosecutor argued aggravating circumstances and counsel for Thomas argued mitigating circumstances. The trial judge then provided the jury with sentencing instructions. After they were charged, the jury began deliberations. The deliberations lasted between one hour fifty minutes and two hours, after which the following colloquy occurred: 7 THE COURT: Ms. Cunningham, does the jury have a report they would like to make to me? Do not tell me how you are split if there is a numerical division in your number. 8 MS. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, it is. 9 THE COURT: Okay. We have spent the better part of two days trying this case. Witnesses have been brought in and told everything there is to be told about this case. The lawyers have done a fine job in presenting both sides of the case to you. Under the circumstances I'm going to recess you until 8:30 in the morning. Let's make it 9:00 in the morning. I have a docket to call. And let y'all come back in fresh and try your deliberation again. I feel two hours is too short a time deliberation to call a hung jury. .... 10 Is there anything further for the state? 11 MR. BARBER: No, Sir. 12 THE COURT: For the defendant? 13 MR. HULTQUIST: No, Sir. 14 (Folder No. 5, Vol. 4 at 602-03). The trial judge then ordered the jury to remain sequestered and discharged them for the evening. 15 The following morning, defendant's counsel argued that the jury should not be allowed to continue deliberating because of the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala.1980). The trial judge denied defendant's request to prevent further deliberations and charged the jury as follows: 16 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I hope y'all had a pleasant evening and are rested. When I told you I wanted you to deliberate further, I am not trying to force you to get a verdict. There's one thing I feel like that y'all might not have understood from my previous charge to you and I want to make this clear to you. 17 If the jury cannot agree on a unanimous sentence of death as the punishment, the alternative form of, we, the jury, find the punishment life imprisonment without parole would be what you would return. Did y'all understand that previously? 18 JUROR: No, sir. 19 THE COURT: So, you have two possible forms you may return. One, is the death verdict form I have given you. If you cannot agree on that unanimously, then your verdict would be the life imprisonment without parole. 20 Do you have any questions or anything further I might be able to assist you in, in your deliberations at this time? 21 (Indicating no.) 22 THE COURT: Thank You. 23 (Jury out for further deliberation.) 24 (Folder No. 5, Vol. 4 at 602-03). 25 Defendant argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights in that it should have accepted the jury's May 19th statement that it had not yet reached a decision as a recommendation that Thomas be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole pursuant to Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala.1980). Defendant further argues that the trial court coerced the jury to return a sentence of death when it instructed them to continue deliberations. We find both contentions meritless. 26 After careful review of the record we cannot conclude that the state trial judge committed constitutional error in requiring the jury to continue deliberations after learning of their indecision at the close of the afternoon session. Although there is no specific statement in the record as to the time when the judge called the jury out of deliberations on May 19, 1982, we are of the impression that it was late in the day. The afternoon session began at approximately 2:00 p.m. and included opening statements regarding sentencing, arguments concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances, sentencing instructions to the jury, and approximately two hours of jury deliberation. Thus, it appears that the court was simply recessing for the evening when it called the jurors to determine whether a verdict had been reached. 27 Nonetheless defendant argues that the response from the jury that they had not yet reached an unanimous verdict precluded the judge from imposing the death sentence. We disagree. There is no indication in the record that the jurors were complaining to the court that they were hopelessly deadlocked. Cf. Ex parte Giles, 554 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Ala. 1987) (per curiam) (Alabama Supreme Court reversed death sentence where judge mandated continued deliberations after jury stated it was hopelessly deadlocked). To the contrary, there is no indication in the record that the jury had terminated its deliberations when the trial judge questioned Ms. Cunningham. We hypothesize that the judge inquired as to the jury's position in order to determine whether it would be necessary to reconvene the following day. We do not believe that Thomas' right to due process was violated by the trial judge's actions. 28 Moreover, we find that the state trial judge was not coercive in mandating further deliberations and reinstructing the jury on May 20, 1982. We believe Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988), is germane. In Lowenfield, the jury, after being charged, began deliberations. The evening drew to a close and they reconvened the next day to continue deliberations. During the afternoon, the jury sent a note to the judge stating that they were unable to reach a decision at that time and requesting advice from the court again as to their responsibilities. The court responded by providing each juror with a note asking if it would be helpful to continue deliberations. Eight of the twelve jurors thought further deliberations would be helpful. When the court called the jurors into the courtroom to advise them of their responsibilities, the jury again gave the court a note which stated that some of the jurors misunderstood the previous question. The judge asked whether further deliberations would help them reach a verdict, and eleven responded affirmatively. The court then instructed the jury again, and in thirty minutes, the jury returned a verdict sentencing defendant to death. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not impermissibly coerce the jury to return a death sentence when it polled the jury twice and reinstructed it to continue deliberations. 29 Under the authority of Lowenfield, we find the trial judge's colloquy with the jury in the present case to be even more uncoercive. Unlike the trial judge in Lowenfield who ordered continued deliberations after the jury, of its own volition, informed the court of its failure to reach a verdict, the judge in the instant case interrupted the jurors before they had ceased deliberating. He did not order continued deliberations in response to the jury's claim of indecisiveness, but rather, he permitted the jury to reconvene to resume discussions which they had not yet completed. We find this situation to be inherently less coercive than the situation with which the Lowenfield jurors were faced. Hence, if the Supreme Court found no error in the actions of the Lowenfield judge, then we certainly find that the judge in this case committed no error in allowing the jury to continue deliberations. 30 Further, the trial judge in the instant case explicitly stated to the reconvened jury that he was not trying to force them to reach a verdict. Rather, he explained that if they could not agree unanimously on a sentence of death, they would be required to return a verdict of life imprisonment without parole. Nothing in what the judge told the jury leads us to believe that the jury was coerced into recommending a death sentence. To the contrary, we believe the judge painstakingly attempted to avoid influencing the jury to return a verdict of death. 31