State v. Howard
Decision Date | 12 April 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 87-2154,87-2154 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. HOWARD, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The traditional Allen charge (Allen v. United States [1896], 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528) is not a proper supplemental charge to be given to juries in Ohio which have become deadlocked on the question of conviction or acquittal.
2. In place of the traditional Allen charge, we approve the following supplemental instruction:
On January 21, 1981, Raymond L. Howard, appellee herein, was indicted by the Mahoning County Grand Jury for the aggravated murder of Glenn Howard Frank in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A). Kathy Ortenzio was also named in the indictment; however, this appeal does not include her.
After extensive pre-trial maneuvering, appellee went to trial on July 20, 1981. Following six days of testimony, final argument was heard and jury instructions were given on July 29, 1981.
Late in the afternoon of July 29, 1981, the court received a statement from the jury indicating that the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the aggravated murder charge. With consent of both counsel, the trial judge entered the jury room and gave a supplemental charge, reiterating that the jurors must each decide the case for themselves but that they should consider the opinions of fellow jurors. 1
Shortly after receiving the supplemental instruction, the jury recessed for the evening. Deliberations continued on July 30 and well into the afternoon of July 31 without a verdict being returned. At approximately 3:00 p.m. on July 31, 1981, the court again received a note from the jury indicating that a unanimous verdict could not be reached on the aggravated murder charge. The trial judge, in chambers, informed counsel that he intended to give the jury a charge " * * * short of the Allen charge, but nonetheless one which does a little bit more than encourage them to decide this case." Appellee's counsel objected to this proposed supplemental instruction.
The jury was returned to the courtroom for purposes of receiving a second supplemental instruction. The text of this instruction, and the subject of this appeal, are as follows:
At 3:20 p.m., the jury retired to deliberate further. Barely one hour later, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty to the aggravated murder charge. 2
On appeal, appellee's conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals. On October 5, 1983, this court denied appellee's motion for leave to appeal.
Subsequently, appellee filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The state filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The motion to dismiss was granted by the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County on May 13, 1986. Appellee again appealed to the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County.
On appeal, the court held that the supplemental instruction given by the trial judge to the jury on July 31, 1981 " * * * so coerced and infected the process of jury deliberation so jealously revered in the law, that it constituted prejudicial error affecting * * * [appellee's] substantial rights to a fair and impartial jury and cannot be allowed to stand." Consequently, the court found that appellee's counsel failed to raise this issue on direct appeal and this failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. As a result, the conviction was reversed and the cause was remanded for new trial.
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of the state's motion to certify the record.
Gary L. VanBrocklin, Pros. Atty., Mary Jane Stephens, Youngstown, and Kathi McNabb, Akron, for appellant.
Randall M. Dana, Public Defender, and Robert L. Lane, Columbus, for appellee.
The sole issue before this court is whether the supplemental jury instruction given to the jury on July 31, 1981 was coercive in the sense that it pressured members of the jury who were in the minority to abandon their positions. The essential question becomes whether the supplemental instruction given to the jury by the trial judge, known as the Allen charge, is allowed in Ohio.
The Allen charge or "dynamite" charge, as it is also known, arises from Allen v. United States (1896), 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528. In Allen, the United States Supreme Court set forth a summary of the supplemental instruction given by the trial court:
" * * * [A]lthough the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other's arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, upon the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gapen, ___ Ohio St. 3d ___ (OH 12/15/2004)
...... {¶ 120} "Ms. Flournoy: Correct." . {¶ 121} Before sending the jury back to deliberations, the court issued a supplemental instruction taken from 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (2004) 148, Section 503.011(33), and referred to as a Howard charge. See State v. Howard (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 18, 537 N.E.2d 188, paragraph two of the syllabus. The trial court advised the jurors: . {¶ 122} "In a large portion of the cases, absolute certainty cannot be obtained or expected. Although the verdict must reflect the ......
-
Hamilton v. Gansheimer, No. 1:06 CV 2317.
......State" of Ohio, Columbus, OH, for Respondent. . MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER . JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge. . \t . BACKGROUND . \xC2"... The Petition alleges three constitutional violations: (1) Petitioner was prejudiced by the trial court's reading of a Howard Charge to the jury; (2) he was prejudiced by admission of allegedly perjured testimony; and (3) his conviction for murder with a firearm ......
-
Bonnell v. Mitchel, No. 00CV250.
...... This matter is before the Court on Melvin Bonnell's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody (Docket # 12) (the "Petition"). Bonnell alleges twenty grounds for relief in his Petition. . Also before the Court are ...It is therefore not procedurally defaulted. The warden does not argue otherwise. . 23. In State v. Howard......
-
Wilson v. Warden, Pickaway Corr. Inst.
......MARBLEY Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on the Petition, ...Wilson did not object to the trial court's supplemental instruction referred to as a Howard charge. See State v . Howard , 42 Ohio St.3d 18, 537 N.E.2d 188 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. Wilson did not object to the declaration of ......