Court Opinion

ID: 9609228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:24:16.632958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:43.233234
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
Although I agree with the majority in the results reached, I write separately due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the polling of the jury. The appellant’s trial *1098was completed November 28, 1984, and the jury was excused to begin deliberations. After a few hours, they announced that they had reached a verdict, and were subsequently brought back into the courtroom. The foreman stated that a verdict had been reached and handed it to the bailiff. The verdict was guilty and punishment was assessed at three (3) years. The defense attorney requested that the jury be polled. During the course of the polling, one juror answered in the negative when asked if it was her verdict. The trial judge immediately told the jury that they would be required to continue their deliberations. One juror spoke up, asking whether the punishment must be unanimously decided. After the juror’s comment, the judge decided to poll each juror again to determine whether a verdict as to guilt had been reached. Each juror answered in the affirmative. They were then dismissed to determine punishment, and later assessed punishment at two and one-half (2½) years.
Title 22 O.S.1981 § 921 allows for the polling of the jury after rendition of the verdict but before recordation. If any juror states that he disagrees with the verdict, the jury must be sent out for further deliberation. Id. In the present case, there was a disagreement about the length of punishment, but not as to guilt. The second polling clearly indicates that the verdict as to guilt was unanimous. Furthermore, the appellant was not prejudiced by these events because the punishment was reduced from three (3) years to two and one-half (2¾⅛) years.
Accordingly, I would affirm.