deadlocked jury instruction in Kansas

2015In agreeing with the State, the district court judge stated, “I’m particularly mindful that at this point in time we do not necessarily want to rush the jury simply because we’re working to try and beat the weather, so I’m going to keep that instruction in place, noting the defendants reservation and I think I’ll just call it an objection to it and make it a continuing objection.” It is possible that a deadlocked jury instruction—commonly known as an Allen-type instruction—given during jury deliberations “could be coercive or exert undue pressure on the jury to reach a verdict.” State v. Struz

2015In agreeing with the State, the district court judge stated, “I’m particularly mindful that at this point in time we do not necessarily want to rush the jury simply because we’re working to try and beat the weather, so I’m going to keep that instruction in place, noting the defendants reservation and I think I’ll just call it an objection to it and make it a continuing objection.” It is possible that a deadlocked jury instruction—commonly known as an Allen-type instruction—given during jury deliberations “could be coercive or exert undue pressure on the jury to reach a verdict.” State v. Struz

2010We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the district court erred in giving, over Baughman's specific objection, a deadlocked jury instruction which had been disapproved by our appellate court in State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 180-81 , 159 P.3d 1028 (2007), State v. Turner, 34 Kan.App.2d 131, 132-36 , 115 P.3d 776 (2005), and other cases.

2010We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the district court erred in giving, over Baughman's specific objection, a deadlocked jury instruction which had been disapproved by our appellate court in State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 180-81 , 159 P.3d 1028 (2007), State v. Turner, 34 Kan.App.2d 131, 132-36 , 115 P.3d 776 (2005), and other cases.

2012Ed. 2d 694 , reh. denied 385 U.S. 890 (1966); (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying Warrior’s motion for new trial in which she alleged the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that pertained to a prior juvenile adjudication of a key prosecution witness; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present hearsay testimony regarding statements made by the victim, Warrior’s husband, indicating his belief that his marriage was in trouble; (4) the trial court erred in giving a deadlocked jury instruction prior to deliberations; (5) Kansas’ hard 50 sentencing scheme

2011Our Supreme Court has noted, however, that "[o]ne error is insufficient to support reversal under the cumulative effect rule. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367, 378 , 203 P.3d 1261 (2009); see also State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1156-57 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3410 , 177 L.Ed.2d 326 (2010) (refusing to apply cumulative error doctrine when a deadlocked jury instruction was the only trial error).

2011Our Supreme Court has noted, however, that "[o]ne error is insufficient to support reversal under the cumulative effect rule. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367, 378 , 203 P.3d 1261 (2009); see also State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1156-57 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3410 , 177 L.Ed.2d 326 (2010) (refusing to apply cumulative error doctrine when a deadlocked jury instruction was the only trial error).

2010The most recent decision on this issue is State v. Starbird, No. 101,559, 2010 WL 744803 , unpublished opinion filed February 26, 2010, where the deadlocked jury instruction was given prior to deliberations but was not objected to.

2010App.2d 584, 586-87 , 203 P.3d 1277 (2009). (`Given the fact our Supreme Court has held the deadlocked jury instruction misleading and the real possibility the jury in this case was at least influenced by the erroneous language in the jury instruction, this defendant's convictions must be reversed.')." 42 Kan.App.2d at 175, 211 P.3d 166 .

2010Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 577-78 , 962 P.2d 445 (1998).

2010Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 577-78 , 962 P.2d 445 (1998).

2010We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the district court erred in giving, over Baughman's specific objection, a deadlocked jury instruction which had been disapproved by our appellate court in State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 180-81 , 159 P.3d 1028 (2007), State v. Turner, 34 Kan.App.2d 131, 132-36 , 115 P.3d 776 (2005), and other cases.

2010We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the district court erred in giving, over Baughman's specific objection, a deadlocked jury instruction which had been disapproved by our appellate court in State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 180-81 , 159 P.3d 1028 (2007), State v. Turner, 34 Kan.App.2d 131, 132-36 , 115 P.3d 776 (2005), and other cases.

2010We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the district court erred in giving, over Baughman's specific objection, a deadlocked jury instruction which had been disapproved by our appellate court in State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 180-81 , 159 P.3d 1028 (2007), State v. Turner, 34 Kan.App.2d 131, 132-36 , 115 P.3d 776 (2005), and other cases.

2010We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the district court erred in giving, over Baughman's specific objection, a deadlocked jury instruction which had been disapproved by our appellate court in State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 180-81 , 159 P.3d 1028 (2007), State v. Turner, 34 Kan.App.2d 131, 132-36 , 115 P.3d 776 (2005), and other cases.

2009“You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and take all the time you feel necessary.” (Emphasis added.) The giving of the deadlocked jury instruction before the jury retires for deliberations has previously been approved, see State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003), and reaffirmed in State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006).

2009“You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and take all the time you feel necessary.” (Emphasis added.) The giving of the deadlocked jury instruction before the jury retires for deliberations has previously been approved, see State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003), and reaffirmed in State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006).

2009The district court’s decision to give a deadlocked jury instruction is the only trial error, albeit not reversible error, we have found. “[T]he presence of one trial error is insufficient to accumulate.” State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 , Syl. ¶ 14, 213 P.3d 728 (2009). *1157 Because multiple errors have not been found, the cumulative error doctrine is not applicable.

2009The district court’s decision to give a deadlocked jury instruction is the only trial error, albeit not reversible error, we have found. “[T]he presence of one trial error is insufficient to accumulate.” State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 , Syl. ¶ 14, 213 P.3d 728 (2009). *1157 Because multiple errors have not been found, the cumulative error doctrine is not applicable.

2009“You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and take all the time you feel necessary.” (Emphasis added.) The giving of the deadlocked jury instruction before the jury retires for deliberations has previously been approved, see State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003), and reaffirmed in State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006).

2009“You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and take all the time you feel necessary.” (Emphasis added.) The giving of the deadlocked jury instruction before the jury retires for deliberations has previously been approved, see State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003), and reaffirmed in State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006).