Opinion ID: 1664416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was the Court's Communication a Verdict-Urging Instruction?

Text: McConnells' final contention is that the trial court's responses to the jury's hand-written questions constituted a verdict-urging instruction which improperly coerced a verdict. They point out that the court's final direction to the jury to complete and sign the verdict form gave the jury no option but to end its deliberations and return its special verdicts, regardless whether the jurors wished to continue deliberating. We disagree. First, we do not find in the trial court's written communications to the jury any element of coercion. The court's initial response to the jury commenced with the question: Have you answered Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4? The jury answered yes. Only then did the jurors give the court in writing their answers to those four special verdicts. Because the jury by its response told the court that it had completed its deliberations on the issues covered by the first four special verdicts, the jury's consideration of this case was not prematurely terminated. The ultimate test for determining the propriety of a verdict-urging instruction is whether the instruction improperly coerced a verdict or merely initiated a new train of real deliberation which terminated the disagreement. State v. Campbell, 294 N.W.2d 803, 808 (Iowa 1980). Reversal is in order only when the surrounding circumstances demonstrate prejudice. Id. at 809. We conclude that the court's communications with the jury in this case did not improperly coerce the jurors into rendering their special verdicts. The record fully supports the trial court's determination that the jury had already answered the factual questions on its own before the court asked the jurors to complete and sign the special verdict form and return with it into court. The trial court did not err in denying McConnells' motion for new trial. AFFIRMED.