deadlock instruction in Illinois

2024The State and defense counsel requested a deadlock instruction pursuant to People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62 (1972).

1987App. 3d 924, 928 , 374 N.E.2d 1114, 1117 .) The trial court, in effect, gave a deadlock instruction (more commonly known as a Prim instruction (People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 , 289 N.E.2d 601 , cert. denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918 , 37 L.

1987App. 3d 924, 928 , 374 N.E.2d 1114, 1117 .) The trial court, in effect, gave a deadlock instruction (more commonly known as a Prim instruction (People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 , 289 N.E.2d 601 , cert. denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918 , 37 L.

1984Defendant also asserts that the instruction given following these offensive prefatory remarks was an inappropriate and prejudicially incomplete version of the deadlock instruction prescribed in People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 , 289 N.E .2d 601, cert. denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918 , 37 L.

1987App. 3d 924, 928 , 374 N.E.2d 1114, 1117 .) The trial court, in effect, gave a deadlock instruction (more commonly known as a Prim instruction (People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 , 289 N.E.2d 601 , cert. denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918 , 37 L.

1984Defendant also asserts that the instruction given following these offensive prefatory remarks was an inappropriate and prejudicially incomplete version of the deadlock instruction prescribed in People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 , 289 N.E .2d 601, cert. denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918 , 37 L.

1987Ed. 2d 144 , 93 S. Ct. 2731 )) after the jury had only spent a short time deliberating and the trial court had no indication that it was deadlocked.

1984Ed. 2d 144 , 93 S. Ct. 2731 .

1992(Flint, 141 Ill.

1992(Whitecotton, 162 Ill.

1992(People v. Cowan (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 324, 327-28 .) When an instruction is not based on pattern instructions, the court’s response must be simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument (134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a); People v. Branch (1984), 123 Ill.

1992(People v. Cowan (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 324, 327-28 .) When an instruction is not based on pattern instructions, the court’s response must be simple, brief, impartial, and free from argument (134 Ill. 2d R. 451(a); People v. Branch (1984), 123 Ill.

1987App. 3d 924, 928 , 374 N.E.2d 1114, 1117 .) The trial court, in effect, gave a deadlock instruction (more commonly known as a Prim instruction (People v. Prim (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 62 , 289 N.E.2d 601 , cert. denied (1973), 412 U.S. 918 , 37 L.

1984(See, e.g., People v. Rollins (1982), 108 Ill.

1984App. 3d 444 , 399 N.E.2d 1333 (jury twice instructed to continue deliberations when it indicated that it was deadlocked).) Thus, the trial court did not determine that the jury was deadlocked, and did not intend to give a deadlock instruction.

1984Moreover, where the decision to give a deadlock instruction is within the discretion of the trial court (People v. Thompson (1981), 93 Ill.

1984App. 3d 995 , 418 N.E.2d 112 ), it is questionable here whether, in the light of the juror’s preoccupation with the issue of punishment, rather than with the evidence as it related to guilt or innocence, this situation was in fact a true deadlock, warranting an instruction thereon, or whether some other instruction — such as IPI Criminal No. 1.01(4) — which specifies: “You are not to concern yourself with possible punishment or sentence for the offense charged during your deliberation ***” might have been more appropriate.

1978App. 3d 632, 633 , 362 N.E.2d 820, 821 ); and “Some of the people feel there is [a possibility of reaching a verdict] and some feel there isn’t” (People v. Anthony (1975), 30 Ill.

1978Ed. 2d 752 , 89 S. Ct. 2112 : “The length of jury deliberations is a matter which rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and its judgment in this regard will not be disturbed unless this discretion has been clearly abused. [Citation.]” Concerning the second element, it has been held that a deadlock instruction is improper where the foreman states unequivocably that the jury can reach a verdict (Jackson), but the following responses have been considered sufficient to support the giving of a deadlock instruction: In People v. Prim, “I think there is a chance [to arrive at a verdict

1978App. 3d 632, 633 , 362 N.E.2d 820, 821 ); and “Some of the people feel there is [a possibility of reaching a verdict] and some feel there isn’t” (People v. Anthony (1975), 30 Ill.

1977App. 3d 610 , 336 N.E.2d 56 .) We note that defendant did timely object to the giving of the deadlock instruction and in so doing called the possible error to the attention of the trial court.

1977Further, we find no error in the bailiff carrying the note because it was composed by the judge in the presence of the defendants and defense counsel (People v. Adams (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 492, 498-99 , 224 N.E.2d 252, 256 ), and we do not believe that the direction to the jury to return their verdict can be fairly construed, in its context, to be a deadlock instruction.

1977Further, we find no error in the bailiff carrying the note because it was composed by the judge in the presence of the defendants and defense counsel (People v. Adams (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 492, 498-99 , 224 N.E.2d 252, 256 ), and we do not believe that the direction to the jury to return their verdict can be fairly construed, in its context, to be a deadlock instruction.

1971Two cases, People v. Golub, 333 Ill. 554 , 165 N.E. 196 and People v. Richards, 95 Ill.App.2d 430 , 237 N.E.2d 848 , are the only two Illinois authorities called to our attention in which the question of giving a deadlock instruction in a criminal case is involved.

1971Two cases, People v. Golub, 333 Ill. 554 , 165 N.E. 196 and People v. Richards, 95 Ill.App.2d 430 , 237 N.E.2d 848 , are the only two Illinois authorities called to our attention in which the question of giving a deadlock instruction in a criminal case is involved.

1971Two cases, People v. Golub, 333 Ill. 554 , 165 N.E. 196 and People v. Richards, 95 Ill.App.2d 430 , 237 N.E.2d 848 , are the only two Illinois authorities called to our attention in which the question of giving a deadlock instruction in a criminal case is involved.

1971Two cases, People v. Golub, 333 Ill. 554 , 165 N.E. 196 and People v. Richards, 95 Ill.App.2d 430 , 237 N.E.2d 848 , are the only two Illinois authorities called to our attention in which the question of giving a deadlock instruction in a criminal case is involved.