Crowdus v. State, No. 381S56
| Docket Nº | No. 381S56 |
| Citation | 431 N.E.2d 796 |
| Case Date | March 05, 1982 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 796
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Page 797
Christopher C. Zoeller, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of Count I, Possession of Cocaine, a Class D Felony, as a lesser included offense of the charge of Delivery of Cocaine, Ind.Code § 35-48-4-1(1) (Burns Supp.1981), and Count II, Delivery of Cocaine, a Class B Felony, Ind.Code § 35-48-4-1(1) (Burns Supp.1981). He was sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment upon Count I and eleven (11) years imprisonment upon Count II, such sentences to run concurrently. This direct appeal presents four issues, one of which requires us to reverse and remand for a new trial.
After the jurors had deliberated for almost two hours, they requested that the trial court give them an instruction on entrapment and inform them of what would happen if they could not reach a unanimous decision. Over Defendant's timely objection, the trial court gave the following additional instructions:
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION NO. A
The Court has heretofore defined entrapment in the Final Instructions. That Instruction reads as follows:
Under the law of the State of Indiana, it is a defense that:
(1) the prohibited conduct of the person was the product of a law enforcement officer, or his agent, using persuasion or other means likely to cause the person to engage in the conduct; and (2) the person was not predisposed to commit the offense. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit the offense does not constitute entrapment.
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION NO. B
Any verdict reached as to each count must be unanimous. You are to return one verdict as to each count. If you cannot reach a unanimous verdict there would be a mistrial and what is known as a hung jury.
This, as any case, is an important case. If you should fail to reach a decision, the case is left open and undecided. Like all cases it must be disposed of some time. Another trial would be a heavy burden on both sides.
Also, there is no reason to believe that the case would ever be submitted to twelve people more intelligent or more impartial or more reasonable than you. Any future jury must be selected in the same manner that you were.
These matters are mentioned now because some of them may not have been in your thoughts.
Page 798
This does not mean that those favoring any particular position should surrender their honest convictions as to the weight or effect of any evidence solely because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Culligan Fyrprotexion, Inc., No. 1-1180A333
...charges." The court, however, approved rereading all Page 1365 of the instructions previously given. Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314; Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107. Even rereading all of the instructions previously ......
-
Brinegar v. Robertson Corp., No. 47A04-8811-CV-388
...Fyrprotexion, Inc. (1982), 437 N.E.2d 1360, 1364; Smith v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 579, 388 N.E.2d 484; and Crowdus v. State (1982), 431 N.E.2d 796. Our supreme court has disapproved of giving of any single instruction after the jury has commenced deliberation except in limited circumstances......
-
Capitol Builders, Inc. v. Shipley, No. 2-281A65
...convictions based on the trial court's delivery of such a charge to an apparently deadlocked jury. Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314. In both cases, as in Lewis, the problem has been characterized as one occasioned by jury deadlock......
-
Foster v. State, No. 71S00-9709-CR-510
...a particular aspect of the case and also avoids suggesting a resolution of the issue. See Cameron, 383 N.E.2d at 1041; Crowdus v. State, 431 N.E.2d 796, 798 This Court has emphasized that a trial court should exercise its discretion to depart from this general procedure only for good reason......
-
Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Culligan Fyrprotexion, Inc., No. 1-1180A333
...charges." The court, however, approved rereading all Page 1365 of the instructions previously given. Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314; Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107. Even rereading all of the instructions previo......
-
Brinegar v. Robertson Corp., No. 47A04-8811-CV-388
...Fyrprotexion, Inc. (1982), 437 N.E.2d 1360, 1364; Smith v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 579, 388 N.E.2d 484; and Crowdus v. State (1982), 431 N.E.2d 796. Our supreme court has disapproved of giving of any single instruction after the jury has commenced deliberation except in limited circumstances......
-
Capitol Builders, Inc. v. Shipley, No. 2-281A65
...convictions based on the trial court's delivery of such a charge to an apparently deadlocked jury. Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314. In both cases, as in Lewis, the problem has been characterized as one occasioned by jury deadlock......
-
Foster v. State, No. 71S00-9709-CR-510
...a particular aspect of the case and also avoids suggesting a resolution of the issue. See Cameron, 383 N.E.2d at 1041; Crowdus v. State, 431 N.E.2d 796, 798 This Court has emphasized that a trial court should exercise its discretion to depart from this general procedure only for good reason......