State v. Quitt, 54819
| Decision Date | 21 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 54819,54819 |
| Citation | 204 N.W.2d 913 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Terry Edward QUITT, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Donald W. Sylvester, Sioux City, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Sullins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Onawa, James F. Gaukel, Mapleton and Steven E. Allen, County Atty., Onawa, for appellee.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and LeGRAND, REES, UHLENHOPP and HARRIS, JJ.
Defendant, charged by county attorney's information with the crime of murder, was tried to a jury, convicted of murder in the second degree, sentenced, and now appeals.
Defendant relies upon one error only to justify reversal; he contends the giving of a verdict-urging instruction after the court had been informed by the foreman of the jury that the jury was deadlocked, constitutes coercion when the same resulted, as claimed by defendant, in a verdict a short time thereafter. He asserts the giving of the so-called 'Allen' charge after the jury reported it was deadlocked is Ipso facto coercive and constitutes reversible error, and further contends the verdict-urging charge should be rejected and the standards proposed by the American Bar Association adopted.
Trial of the case commenced on Monday, November 16, 1970, and on that date a jury was selected and a recess was taken until the morning of November 17. The balance of that week to approximately noon on Friday, November 20, was taken up with the introduction of evidence. The trial was then recessed until Monday, November 23. After arguments of counsel and the reading of the instructions to the jury, the jury retired to deliberate upon its verdict at 12:17 p.m. The jury continued to deliberate throughout that day (November 23) and, save and except for time taken up for meals, was in its process of deliberation until 9:03 p.m. that evening, when the jury was permitted to separate, after admonition by the court, and was directed to return at 9:30 a.m. the following day. The jury reconvened at 9:39 a.m. on November 24, and continued its deliberation until 3:19 p.m. in the afternoon of that date, when the court called the jury to the courtroom and asked all of the members of the jury if they were deadlocked. The court then directed the jury to retire to its jury room and to advise the court through its foreman whether or not it considered itself hopelessly deadlocked.
Thereafter the court received a written message from the foreman of the jury in which he advised the court, The court thereupon conferred with counsel and, with the acquiescence of counsel, advised the jury in writing that a unanimous conclusion the jury was hopelessly deadlocked would not be required.
At 4:53 p.m. on November 24, the court called the jury to the courtroom and in writing gave to it the instruction plaintiff now complains of on this appeal. The instruction is the uniform instruction developed by the Uniform Instruction Committee of the Iowa Bar Association and identified as Uniform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Campbell
...helped coerce a verdict or merely initiated a new train of real deliberation which terminated the disagreement. E. g., State v. Quitt, 204 N.W.2d 913, 914 (Iowa 1973). In applying this test, we are mindful that the trial judge has considerable discretion in determining whether the verdict-u......
-
State v. Cornell
...standard of review in determining the propriety of a trial court's giving a verdict-urging instruction to the jury. See State v. Quitt, 204 N.W.2d 913, 914 (Iowa 1973). We adhere to that standard to determine whether inquiry into the numerical division of the jury was reversible Since appro......
-
State v. Johnny Blahnik Church
...hours after receiving the district court's verdict-urging instruction. This negates any suggestion of coercion. See State v. Quitt, 204 N.W.2d 913, 914 (Iowa 1973) ("The record here does not suggest coercion. In fact, it rather demonstratively negatives it. The fact the jury deliberated 3 h......
-
State v. Terrill, 58198
...the form of Instruction 1.1 of I Iowa Uniform Jury Instructions (1970). This is a version of the so-called Allen charge. See State v. Quitt, 204 N.W.2d 913 (Iowa). Defense counsel objected on several grounds and then stated that his objection to the instruction was in giving it 'at this tim......