Opinion ID: 2070572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trial Court's Instructions

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court's unanimity instructions on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and its refusal to poll the jurors individually on their verdict regarding the affirmative defense created the possibility that defendant was convicted of first-degree murder notwithstanding that one or more of the jurors found that he had established extreme emotional disturbance. [19] The verdict sheet used in this case required the jury first to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's guilt for counts one through eight of the indictment (charging murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree). If the jury found defendant guilty on any one of those counts, it was to proceed to Question A which asks: Did the defendant establish the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance? The jury was required to check YES or NO. Near the end of its deliberation instructions, the trial court reminded the jury that its job was: to go through this verdict sheet and attempt to reach a verdict on each of the counts submitted to you and to follow the instructions on the verdict sheet.    I'm going to send you into the juryroom in a few minutes to start your deliberations. The goal of this process is an unanimous verdict. You should, therefore, attempt to reach such a verdict. You may well find that you differ among yourselves. You should, therefore, make every effort to harmonize your various views so that you can come to an unanimous agreement as to the facts of this case  (emphasis supplied). During the second day of the guilt-phase deliberations, the jury issued a note asking the court to review the criteria for extreme emotional disturbance and asking whether a unanimous vote [is] required on the question `A' re the establishment of extreme emotional disturbance by the defense. The court re-read its extreme emotional disturbance charge and then told the jury, [t]he answer to question 2, is a unanimous verdict required, is yes. When the jury returned from deliberations, the foreperson announced that the jury had reached a verdict and that the verdict was unanimous in all respects. The jury found defendant guilty on counts one through seven. The foreperson was then asked how the jury answered Question A. The foreperson indicated that the jury had answered that question in the negative, thus rejecting defendant's affirmative defense. Each of the jurors was asked if the verdict announced by the foreperson was their verdict in all respects. Each responded yes. Under the circumstances here, we conclude that the trial court's instruction was sufficient to convey the need for unanimity with respect to the issue of extreme emotional disturbance. [20] The question asked of the jury on the verdict sheet to which both sides subscribedwhether defendant established the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbancecould only be answered yes or no. Prior to deliberations, the jury was instructed that the goal of the process was a unanimous verdict. They were told that they needed to come to a unanimous agreement as to the facts of the case. When the jury inquired whether it had to be unanimous in answering the question on the affirmative defense, they were told, in no uncertain terms, yes. Finally, when each individual juror was polled to ascertain whether the verdict announced by the foreperson was their verdict in all respects, each juror stated yes. Thus, we conclude that, taking the trial court's instructions, supplemental instructions and the polling into consideration, the jury reasonably understood that its decision with respect to defendant's affirmative defense required unanimity.