People v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 18 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
| Citation | 390 Mich. 689,213 N.W.2d 193 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Albert Charles WILSON, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. 390 Mich. 689, 213 N.W.2d 193, 77 A.L.R.3d 765 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William C. Buhl, Pros. Atty., Van Buren County, Paw Paw, for plaintiff-appellant.
State Appellate Defender Office by Stuart M. Israel, Asst. Appellate Defender, Detroit, Barbara L. Betsey, Marie Colombo, Research Assts., for defendant-appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
The case was well put by the Court of Appeals, 44 Mich.App. 137, 205 N.W.2d 75:
'Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted breaking and entering. MCLA § 750.92; MSA § 28.287 and MCLA § 750.110; MSA § 28.305. Defendant appeals his conviction. We reverse.
'After approximately ninety minuters of deliberation the jury returned to the courtroom. The foreman advised the court that the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict, and the following colloquy occurred:
'Defendant claims that the trial judge erred by asking the jury for numerical division of the jury.'
The majority of the Court of Appeals' panel adopted the rule of Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 47 S.Ct. 135, 71 L.Ed. 345 (1926), holding that the trial judge's inquiry into the numerical division of the jury had the tendency to be coercive, and constituted error.
Judge Holbrook in dissent argued that the rule in Michigan heretofore has been that each case must be considered upon its own facts, the issue on appeal being whether, under all the circumstances, the supplemental instruction of the trial court was coercive and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
We are disposed to adopt the reasoning of the majority below.
In the case at hand, the trial court, upon hearing that the jury was divided eleven to one, observed,
'Well, that is not very far from a verdict.'
The clear implication of the trial judge's remark was that only one more juror remained to be convinced in order to permit the return of a unanimous verdict.
It cannot be supposed that a jury is closer to agreement--in point of time--when it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez
...132; Dunford v. State (Okla.1980) 614 P.2d 1115, 1118; White v. State (1979) 95 Nev. 881, 603 P.2d 1063, 1065; with People v. Wilson (1973) 390 Mich. 689, 213 N.W.2d 193, Kersey v. State (Tenn.1975) 525 S.W.2d 139, 141.)In approving numerical-division inquiries, this court's Carter opinion ......
-
People v. Dietrich
...have recognized that prejudice may result from the disclosure of the numerical division among the jurors, see People v. Wilson, 390 Mich. 689, 213 N.W.2d 193 (1973). In Wilson, supra, the Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the court to inquire into the numerical division am......
-
Lebron v. State
...effect of melting the resistance of the minority and freezing the determination of the majority'") (quoting People v. Wilson, 390 Mich. 689, 213 N.W.2d 193, 195 (1973)), approved, Scoggins v. State, 726 So.2d 762, 766-67 (Fla.1999). As stated in this Court's Scoggins We conclude that the po......
-
Jimenez v. Myers, 91-56476
...Graham v. State, 325 Md. 398, 601 A.2d 131 (1992); Hyman Reiver & Co. v. Rose, 51 Del. 397, 147 A.2d 500 (1958); People v. Wilson, 390 Mich. 689, 213 N.W.2d 193 (1973); Rodriguez v. State, 559 So.2d 678 (Fla.Ct.App.1990); Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn.1975); State v. George, 219 Mon......