Redeford v. State, No. 9478

• Docket Nº: No. 9478
• Citation: 93 Nev. 649, 572 P.2d 219
• Case Date: December 22, 1977
• Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Page 219

572 P.2d 219 93 Nev. 649 Earl Lenon REDEFORD, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. No. 9478. Supreme Court of Nevada. Dec. 22, 1977.

[93 Nev. 650] Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, and Terrence M. Jackson, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, George Holt, Dist. Atty., and H. Leon Simon, Deputy Dist. Atty., Clark County, Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

GUNDERSON, Justice:

Earl Lenon Redeford appeals from a conviction by jury for attempted burglary contending: (1) the district court erred in giving a coercive jury instruction; (2) a statutory presumption created by the legislature for burglary prosecutions is unconstitutional; and (3) the district court erred by admitting evidence of a prior felony conviction. Appellant's initial contention has merit, and we must reverse.

1. At the close of evidence the trial court read a standard [93 Nev. 651] jury instruction which discussed the deliberation process. ¹

Page 220

The jury then retired, deliberated during the evening, but became deadlocked. The following morning, the court, without request of either party, orally instructed the jury as follows:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are now into your second day of deliberation. I don't have to tell you that, you're well aware of it. You've heard all the evidence in this case for approximately two and half (sic) to three days. Really, there is nothing decided unless the jury comes in with a verdict. You're an intelligent jury, and if this case had to be tried over because of your failure to reach a verdict, another jury of twelve people no more intelligent would hear the same evidence and attempt to reach a verdict. So you don't accomplish anything by not reaching a verdict in this case. So would you continue your deliberations, pleas, and put your collective minds together, and reach a verdict in this case. (Emphasis added.) ²

Less than two hours later, the jury returned with a verdict [93 Nev. 652] convicting appellant of attempted burglary, but acquitting on a separate burglary count.

Appellant challenges the italicized portions of the above charge as denying him an opportunity to have a fair trial by coercing the jury's verdict. Viewing the instruction in light of all the surrounding circumstances of this case, we are compelled to agree.

"(I)t is a cardinal principle of the law that a trial judge may not coerce a jury to the extent of demanding that they return a verdict." United States v. Fioravanti, 412 F.2d 407, 416 (3rd Cir. 1969). Furthermore, "(i)t is a right guaranteed to a defendant on trial for a criminal offense that he shall have the judgment of twelve men uninfluenced by matters foreign to the evidence admitted at the trial." State v. Clark, 38 Nev. 304, 310, 149 P. 185, 187 (1915). In Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965), the Supreme Court held it prejudicial error under the circumstances of that trial to demand of the jury: " 'You have got to reach a decision in this case.' " Ibid. at 446, 85 S.Ct. at 1060.

The instruction used in the case at bar is tantamount to the demand made in Jenkins. It lacks the qualifying language which we have found so vital in the past. In every instance where we approved "dynamite" or "Allen" charges, ³ we noted that the instruction given reminded the individual jurors not to surrender conscientiously held opinions for the sake of judicial economy. See Hudson v. State, 92 Nev. 84, 545 P.2d 1163 (1976); Azbill v. State, 88 Nev. 240, 495 P.2d 1064 (1972); Basurto v. State, 86 Nev. 567, 472 P.2d 339 (1970); State v. Hall, 54

Page 221

Nev. 213, 13 P.2d 624 (1932); cf. Hoskins v. State, 552 P.2d 342 (Wyo.1976). A trial judge must "never for a moment let them forget that '(a) verdict must reflect the views of all,' " Ibid. at 348, and "that each member has a duty to . . . adhere to his own honest opinion." Azbill v. State, 88 Nev. at 248, 495 P.2d at 1069; see also A.B.A. Suggested Jury Instructions Standards, 5.4 Length of Deliberations, Deadlocked Jury, cited fn. 2, Basurto v. State, 86 Nev. at 571, 472 P.2d at 341.

We must therefore conclude that it was error to give the [93 Nev. 653] instruction in the form used. We are also constrained to find the error prejudicial, and not merely harmless,...