 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cavanaugh12/6/1993
was fulfilled when a poll was conducted to ensure that all of the jurors agreed with the verdict that Defendant was guilty of ), cert. denied, 106 N.M. 405, 744 P.2d 180 (1987). On the other hand, we view Defendant's request to poll the jury that returned a general verdict as to which alternative way each juror arrived at the verdict as an improper attempt to impeach that verdict. See SCRA 1986, 11-606(B) (upon inquiry into validity of verdict, juror may not testify as to any matter occurring during the course of deliberations); see also ) (jury poll improper for the purpose of revealing jury's determination of factual issues underlying the verdict). In this case, Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict was safeguarded by the general instruction on unanimity. See ; . Further, Defendant could have tendered a cautionary instruction specifically as to unanimity on the alternative instruction, but he did not. See . Finally, Defendant has not shown any indication that the verdict was not unanimous. He relies on his bare request to poll the jury to make such a showing. However, more evidence than this request is necessary to indicate that the verdict was non-unanimous. See, e.g., (unanimity uncertain when juror gives indefinite response as to the defendant's guilt).
We hold that the trial Judge did all that was required of him under the circumstances of this case to ensure that the verdict was unanimous, and there was no indication of non-unanimity. We therefore see no reason to look behind that verdict. See ;
CUMULATIVE ERROR
As discussed above, we find that there was no error in this case. Consequently, we need not address Defendant's argument of cumulative error.
Conclusion
In accordance with our opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
|