Court Opinion

ID: 9721284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:54:59.529504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.565104
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE McNEAL dissenting: I regret that I cannot agree with the majority opinion that giving IPI (Civil) No. 1.05 constitutes prejudicial and reversible error in this case. Whether the error is harmless or prejudicial depends on the facts in each case. In the Golub case where it did not appear how long the jurors deliberated after they retired the second time, the Court stated (333 Ill. 554, 561) that it cannot be said that the trial corut’s remarks interfered with the deliberations of the jurors to defendant’s prejudice or that they hastened the verdict. In the instant case the jurors had deliberated 4 hours when IPI 1.05 was given, and thereafter they deliberated nearly 8 hours before returning their verdict. The fact that they deliberated twice as long after the instructions was given as before shows that the effect of the instruction in this case was nil, and not prejudicial. The facts here are not comparable with those in the Richards case, 95 Ill.App.2d 430. In that case after 2% hours of deliberation the trial court gave not an approved IPI instruction, but an argumentative, “Allen type”, erroneous instruction which blasted a guilty verdict in 18 minutes, including die time for delivery of the charge as well as the jury’s adjournment from and return to the courtroom. Simply by virtue of the “marked brevity of deliberation” following the delivery of the charge, the Court concluded that an inference of coercion upon the minority jurors arose. The comment under Supreme Court approved IPI 1.05 indicates that instructions of this type have frequently been approved by the federal courts in both civil and criminal cases, and that the thesis of the decisions cited in the comment is that such an instruction does not tend to coerce a verdict and is not partial to either side. Accordingly, I cannot agree that no such instruction should be given in a criminal case. Further, if such an “instruction is effective only if and to the extent that it interferes with or limits the free and independent deliberation of a juror,” and produces the mischief or coercive effect suggested by the majority, then it may be reversible error to give IPI 1.05 in any case. In my opinion the facts in this case show no prejudice to defendant by giving IPI 1.05, and the decisions cited by the majority do not so hold, there are no errors in the record requiring a reversal or a new trial, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.