Com. v. Floyd P.

• Decision Date: 15 July 1993
• Citation: 615 N.E.2d 938,415 Mass. 826
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. FLOYD P., a juvenile. 1
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 938

615 N.E.2d 938

415 Mass. 826

COMMONWEALTH v.FLOYD P., a juvenile. ¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued April 6, 1993.

Decided July 15, 1993.

Joan Curran, Boston (William J. Doyle with her), for juvenile.

Annemarie Relyea-Chew, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Daniel C. Mullane, Asst. Dist. Atty., with her) for the Com.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

GREANEY, Justice.

After trial on three delinquency complaints, a jury in the Boston Juvenile Court returned verdicts finding the juvenile delinquent by reason of armed robbery, aggravated rape and murder in the first degree.A subsequent "Motion to Vacate the Verdicts and For a New Trial" filed by the juvenile was denied by the Juvenile Court judge who presided at the trial.The juvenile appealed to the Appeals Court from the three adjudications of delinquency and the denial of his posttrial motion.We transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion.The juvenile has raised no issue in his brief as to the adjudication of delinquency by reason of armed robbery.As a result, we treat the appeal from that adjudication as waived.As to the two other adjudications, the juvenile contends that the judge accepted a verdict on the aggravated rape complaint that was not final and unanimous on the part of the jury, and that, by his supplemental instructions, the judge coerced the jury into adjudicating him delinquent by reason of first degree murder.We agree with the juvenile that the judge should not have directed the entry of the jury's verdict on the aggravated rape complaint.We do not reach the issue of the possible impact of the supplemental instructions because we conclude that the infirmity in the aggravated rape verdict necessitates setting aside the verdict which adjudicated the juvenile delinquent by reason of first degree murder.

The Commonwealth alleged that the juvenile had participated (with seven other individuals) in a brutal assault on the victim, who died from the combined effects of blunt trauma injuries and multiple stab wounds.The Commonwealth presented evidence that the victim had been robbed and raped prior to her death.The jury were given instructions on three theories of first degree murder (deliberately premeditated murder, murder by extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder).They were also instructed on the elements of armed robbery and aggravated rape, and that armed robbery and aggravated rape constituted felonies that could serve as the basis for a guilty finding on the theory of felony-murder.²With respect to the jury's consideration of felony-murder, the judge instructed that, if the jury found that the juvenile had committed armed robbery or aggravated rape, either as a principal or as a joint venturer, they must also consider whether each felony was committed with "an intent which exhibited a conscious disregard for human life."The judge went on to state: "I'll instruct you that the felony of aggravated rape could not be committed without inherent risk to human life.This means that if you determine that the defendant has committed or attempted to commit the felony of aggravated rape, then you must find that the defendant has displayed the required conscious disregard of human life."A comparable instruction was not given with respect to the felony of armed robbery.³Finally, the jury were instructed on the law of joint venture and duress, the latter issue having been raised by the defendant to negate his responsibility for any of the crimes.

The jury deliberated for six hours after receiving the case and adjourned for the night without reaching a verdict.They resumed deliberations at 9:30 the next morning.One half-hour later, the judge received a note (signed by the forewoman), which read as follows:

"The jury has reached a guilty verdict on the first two charges, armed robbery and aggravated rape.However, two jurors will change their votes if the conviction on rape has to result in first degree murder.The jurors are at an impasse on the murder charge.What is the next step?"

An hour later, the jury and counsel were assembled in the courtroom, and the note was read in open court.Counsel had not been made aware of the contents of the jury's note, and no opportunity had been furnished counsel to address what procedure should be followed in responding to the jury.Relying on Mass.R.Crim.P. 27(b), 378 Mass. 897(1979), ⁴ the judge ordered the forewoman of the jury to sign the verdict slips on the armed robbery and aggravated rape charges (the verdict slips had, in fact, already been signed), and directed the clerk to affirm the verdicts with the jury.The transcript reflects that the jurors affirmed both verdicts.⁵The judge then ordered the jury to resume deliberations on the murder charge, applying the law as he had given it to them.Defense counsel's attempts to address the judge were rebuffed until the jury had left the courtroom.At that time, defense counsel objected to the acceptance of the guilty verdict on the aggravated rape charge and to being deprived of the opportunity to request that the jury be polled on the two verdicts.Forty-five minutes after they resumed deliberations, the jury returned to the courtroom with a verdict adjudicating the juvenile delinquent by reason of first degree murder.The jurors were polled individually on the murder verdict and affirmed their decision unconditionally.

1.The juvenile contends that the judge should not have accepted the aggravated rape verdict because the jury's note indicated that the jurors had reached only a conditional or tentative agreement on the disposition of the aggravated rape charge.We agree.Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 27(b), see note 4, supra, gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury to return "a verdict or verdicts with respect to any charges on which they have reached a verdict"(footnote omitted).Commonwealth v. Foster, 411 Mass. 762, 763, 585 N.E.2d 331(1992).SeeA Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 392 Mass. 52, 55-56, 465 N.E.2d 240(1984).Consistent with the rule, the judge could have accepted unanimous verdicts on the armed robbery and aggravated rape charges and sent the jury back to deliberate further on the murder charge.SeeCommonwealth v. Foster, supra.Cf.Commonwealth v. Diaz, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 29, 471 N.E.2d 741(1984)(judge, declining to accept partial, inconsistent verdicts, sent jury back for further deliberations).The authority to accept partial verdicts, however, does not encompass the power to accept a tentative or conditional verdict on any criminal charge.A jury verdict in a criminal case must be unanimous, and "[a] judge has no authority to direct a verdict when there are issues of fact to be resolved."Commonwealth v. Hebert, supra379 Mass. at 755, 400 N.E.2d 851.

These principles recognize that, as a practical matter, jurors may agree in the course of deliberations to a tentative compromise on the facts of a case or on the disposition of related charges as they attempt to reach unanimous agreement.SeeA Juvenile v. Commonwealth, supra392 Mass. at 56, 465 N.E.2d 240.Such tentative or conditional agreements, often forged in the course of intense discussion and negotiation, cannot have the force of a final verdict.SeeUnited States v. Morris, 612 F.2d 483, 489(10th Cir.1979);Cook v. United States, 379 F.2d 966, 970(5th Cir.1967)("There is no verdict as long as there is any uncertainty or contingency to the finality of the jury's determination")."A jury should not be precluded from reconsidering a previous vote on any issue, and the weight of final adjudication should not be given to any jury action that is not returned in a final verdict."A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, supra392 Mass. at 56, 465 N.E.2d 240, quotingPeople v. Hickey, 103 Mich.App. 350, 353, 303 N.W.2d 19(1981).

In denying the juvenile's motion for a new trial, the judge concluded that the first sentence of the jury's note ("[t]he jury has reached a guilty verdict on the first two charges, armed robbery and aggravated rape") amounted to an unequivocal statement by them that unanimous verdicts on the charges had been reached, and that, "having been so informed [he] had an absolute right ... to ... require those verdicts to be returned."The text of the jury's communication will not support the conclusion the judge sought to draw from it as to the aggravated rape charge.The note clearly indicated that at least some jurors were uncertain of the relationship between a possible adjudication on the aggravated rape complaint and final disposition of the murder charge, and, consequently, the jury had reached only a tentative disposition of the aggravated rape charge.⁶That the verdict slips had been signed does not suggest otherwise.SeeA Juvenile v. Commonwealth, supra392 Mass. at 56, 465 N.E.2d 240.Any doubt on a question of this importance must be resolved in favor of protecting the defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict.SeeCook v. United States, supra.We conclude that the verdict adjudicating the juvenile delinquent on the aggravated rape charge must be set aside.⁷

2.The infirmity in the aggravated rape verdict also undermines the adjudication of delinquency by reason of first degree murder.Having heard instructions on deliberately premeditated murder, murder by extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony-murder, the jury returned a general verdict of first degree murder.The theory of murder on which they based their decision cannot be ascertained.SeeCommonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 98-99, 525 N.E.2d 1322(1988);Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 511, 436 N.E.2d 400(1982).It is possible (even probable), in view of the evidence, and the several inquiries by the jury concerning the requirements of felony-murder, that the murder verdict was based on that theory, and that the verdict on aggravated rape supplied the necessary felony...