Opinion ID: 1823280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Pressure on the jury/defendant's assignment of error number 11

Text: In this assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred when it pressured the jury to reach a verdict quickly, thereby leading the jury to believe it had a deadline for reaching a verdict. The defendant urges this error as to three statements by the trial court. The first such statement was made at the end of the second day of the guilt phase of the trial: Okay. Members of the jury we're going to break for supper and you're going to get the guilt phase of this tomorrow. I'm satisfied of that. Sometime tomorrow you're going to be called upon to decide. What time of day, I don't know but you're gonna do it tomorrow. After you do that, we're going to make some decisions, depending on how you come back and with what type of verdict you come back. We can't make those decisions at this time and I'm not going to make any predictions, so with that, have a good nights [sic] rest and we'll see you at 8:30 in the morning. The second statement was made immediately prior to closing arguments in the guilt phase of trial: Once theythe State completes its argument, then the Defense presents an argument and then the State comes back and they offer a rebuttal argument. And uh, after that's done then I'm going to charge you with the law that applies in this case and you're going to retire to deliberate. Looking at this thing, by the time the lawyers get through arguing, we're gonna talk again and I'm gonna askfind out from you if you wanna go get a little bite to eat because I think ya'll are anxious to get this part of the case over with. Okay. So, we'llwe're gonna finish this part tonight or at least we're gonna get into it where its on it's way to being finished. The final disputed statement was made immediately after the guilty verdict was rendered: We'll get a running start early Monday morning and we're gonna try and get this thing over with Monday. I think that we can by going into the night like we did tonight. I think that Monday should be the last day here. I think that we can, from what I've talked to these lawyers about what evidence they have to present, that I think that the evidence can be presented in ain a day or early into the night and we'llwe'll finish this thing up atat night. Defense counsel did not contemporaneously object to any of these statements. We have previously held that we will not consider alleged errors committed during the guilt phase of a capital trial unless trial counsel contemporaneously objected to those alleged errors. State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), 669 So.2d 364 (This Court's scope of review in capital cases will be limited to alleged errors occurring during the guilt phase that are contemporaneously objected to, and alleged errors occurring during the sentencing phase, whether objected to or not.) Because the first two statements occurred during the guilt phase and were not objected to, they are precluded under Taylor. However, even had defense counsel lodged contemporaneous objections, relief still would not be warranted, as these statements do not truly encourage the jury to rapidly reach a verdict, as the defendant contends. Rather, the statements are merely comments by the judge on the quantity of evidence to be presented at the penalty phase and the amount of time he expected the presentation of this evidence to take. The third statement arguably could be considered as occurring after the guilt phase. However, even assuming arguendo that this statement is not precluded by Taylor, it, like the other two statements at issue in this assignment of error, does not constitute error. This statement is also a comment on the quantity of the evidence and not a forbidden instruction to the jury to rapidly reach a verdict. This assignment of error thus lacks merit.