 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Fitzgerald9/20/1999
ent that the jury not place undue emphasis on the supplemental instruction. Id. at 408. The jury returned a verdict of second degree murder. Id. This court held that the jury had impermissibly established the sentence before making a determination of which crime the defendant had committed among the charge in the indictment and any of its lesser included offenses. Id. The defendant reasons that the jury acted similarly here, unable to decide whether the defendant was guilty of driving under the influence but of the opinion that the defendant had endangered his two children and thus warranted some punishment.
In State v. Mounce, 859 S.W.2d 319, 320 (Tenn. 1993), our supreme court considered a case in which an obviously confused jury unanimously agreed to a particular fine when only eight of the jurors had voted guilty as to the charge. The trial court had declared a mistrial upon receiving the information. Id. Our supreme court ruled that "the trial court had the power and the duty to return the jury [for further deliberations] with instructions that their verdict, whatever it might be, had to be unanimous." Id. at 322. Our high court determined that a mistrial should be declared only after a Conclusion that the jurors were hopelessly deadlocked, indicating a manifest necessity for the mistrial. Id.
In State v. Jefferson, 938 S.W.2d 1, 21-22 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996), this court determined that the proper procedure upon the return of an unacceptable verdict was as follows:
When a jury, as the trier of fact, returns an incomplete or inaccurate verdict that does not conform to the applicable law, the verdict is illegal, a nullity, and, therefore, void. As a result, a trial court cannot accept the verdict because a judgment cannot be pronounced upon a void verdict. If the verdict is to be corrected, the trial court must take immediate action before the jury is discharged. The trial court should advise the jury that the court cannot accept the verdict, direct the jury to either reread the charge given by the court or the court can give a supplemental charge, and have the jury retire to consider its verdict. (Footnotes and citations omitted).
In our view, the trial Judge conducted this trial exactly as he should have under the circumstances. Here, the jurors were properly instructed and given a reasonable opportunity to resolve their differences. It was only upon their report that they had done so that the trial court accepted the verdict.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
CONCUR:
David H. Welles, Judge
Joe G. Riley, Judge
|