Court Opinion

ID: 9683462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:29:17.927092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.036148
License: Public Domain

STUMBO, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I must dissent. The Court of Appeals’ decision was, in my view, completely correct. Being unable to improve upon Judge (now Justice) Johnstone’s language, I quote: “Prior to charging the jury, the trial judge must first determine whether further deliberations may be useful and, having cleared that hurdle, give only the instruction set out in RCr 9.57. No indication of the requisite preliminary inquiry is apparent from the record before us; it does establish, however, that the charge to the jury, although close to the model, simply went a step too far in advising the jury that, ‘You need to return a verdict.’ Given these factors, it is clear that appellant is entitled to a new trial on the count charging first-degree sexual abuse.”
I would affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for a new trial.
STEPHENS, C.J., joins.