People v. Ragland, 85CA0485
Decision Date | 14 May 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 85CA0485,85CA0485 |
Citation | 747 P.2d 4 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John RAGLAND, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Virginia Byrnes Horton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colo. State Public Defender, Rachel A. Bellis, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, John Ragland, appeals the judgments of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of one count of first degree felony murder, one count of first degree murder after deliberation, and one count of second degree burglary. He further appeals the sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant first argues on appeal that he was denied his constitutional rights to a trial by jury and due process of law because, during the deliberations, the trial court gave the jurors a supplemental instruction in the form of COLJI-Crim. No. 38:14 (1983), without first determining that they were hopelessly deadlocked. We disagree.
The case was submitted to the jury at approximately 4:00 p.m. on a Wednesday following a trial that had lasted five days. The jury deliberated one hour on Wednesday, all day Thursday, and began deliberations again at 8:30 a.m. Friday. Forty minutes later, without first inquiring of the jury whether it was, in fact, deadlocked, the court gave the following instruction, sua sponte, and over defendant's objection:
At 11:09 a.m., the jury returned with findings of guilt on the counts of second degree burglary, first degree felony murder, and first degree murder after deliberation.
The decision to give a supplemental instruction when jurors fail to agree is within the discretion of the trial court. However, such instruction should be given only in narrowly prescribed circumstances. One of the prerequisites to the giving of this instruction is that the trial court first determine that there is little likelihood of progress towards a unanimous verdict upon further deliberation. People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000 (Colo.1984); People v. Lewis, 676 P.2d 682 (Colo.1984). These cases suggest that express inquiry should be made of the jury concerning the likelihood of a verdict before the instruction is given. Hence, insofar as the court here failed to make such an inquiry, it erred.
However, the rationale for this requirement is that any judicial effort to avert a deadlocked jury must carefully avoid any constraint on the free and untrammeled deliberative process that expresses the conscientious conviction of each individual juror. Whenever a jury is deadlocked or involved in long and unproductive deliberations, there is a compelling concern that it not be coerced into rendering a verdict which may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Topping v. People
...705 (1967); Germany v. People, 198 Colo. 337, 599 P.2d 904 (1979). See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. at 1012, 108 S.Ct. at 2798; People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987), cert. denied. To determine whether an error of constitutional dimension is harmless, an appellate court must examine the fa......
-
People v. Urrutia
...38:14 (1983). However, use of this instruction is within the trial court's discretion. People v. Lewis, supra; People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987). And, it should be given only in narrowly prescribed circumstances because of the compelling concern that the jury not be coerced into......
-
People v. Glover, 94SC299
...for murder after deliberation and sexual assault); People v. Fincham, 799 P.2d 419, 425 (Colo.App.1990) (same); People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4, 6 (Colo.App.1987) (vacating felony murder conviction and affirming convictions for murder after deliberation and burglary). In each of the preceding......
-
People v. Barnard, No. 98CA0277.
...that requires a juror to surrender honestly held beliefs is antithetical to the requirement of unanimity); see also People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987). Moreover, by the time the jury sent its note indicating that it was deadlocked, it had already deliberated for two days. Thus, s......
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.5 • SUBMITTING CASE TO THE JURY; DELIBERATION AND VERDICT
...judge should first ask whether there is a likelihood of progress toward a unanimous verdict upon further deliberation. People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4, 5 (Colo. App. 1987). If there is an affirmative response, the jury should continue deliberation without any additional instruction. The judge......