supplemental instruction in Tennessee

2019You should not single out one or more of them to the exclusion of others but should consider each one in light of and in harmony with the others.” See Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 452 (holding that the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction was not reversible error even though the trial court did not admonish the jury to place no undue emphasis upon the supplemental instruction because the primary charge “included an instruction not to single out one instruction over any other”).

2019Trial courts have “the authority to respond to jury questions with a supplemental instruction.” Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 451 .

2009We are aware that a criminal defendant is entitled to a correct and complete charge of the law, State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000), and that the trial court may give a supplemental instruction when questioned by the jury, State v. Moore, 751 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tenn. Crim.

2000App. 1995) (trial court has the authority to respond to jury questions with a supplemental instruction); State v. Moore, 751 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tenn. Crim.

2020The “appropriate course of action” for a trial court responding to a jury question is to “bring the jurors back into open court, read the supplemental instruction . . . along with a supplemental instruction emphasizing that the jury should not place undue emphasis on the supplemental instructions, and then allow the jury to resume its deliberations.” State v. Bowers, 77 S.W.3d 776, 791 (Tenn. Crim.

2020App. P. 36(b); see also Bowers, 77 S.W.3d at 791 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to read the supplemental instruction to the jury in open court and to admonish the jury not to place undue emphasis on the supplemental instruction was harmless).

2015While the trial court‟s supplemental instruction should have admonished the jury not to place undue emphasis upon the supplemental instruction, the final jury instructions informed the jury that “[t]he order in which these instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance” and that it “should not single out any one or more of them to the exclusion of another or others but should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with all the others.” See Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 452 (citing State v. Chance, 778 S.W.2d 457, 462 (Tenn. Crim.

2014While the trial court’s supplemental instruction should have admonished the jury not to place undue emphasis upon the supplemental instruction, the final jury instructions informed the jury that “[t]he order in which these instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance” and that it “should not single out any one or more of them to the exclusion of another or others but should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with all the others.” See Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 452 (citing State v. Chance, 778 S.W.2d 457, 462 (Tenn. Crim.

1999App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1989) (finding no error in supplemental instruction as to whether a printed name on a signature line constituted a signature); and Burton v. State, 394 S.W.2d 873, 875-76 (Tenn. 1965) (finding the trial court properly provided sua sponte a supplemental instruction regarding malice).

1999When supplemental instructions are given to the jury, there is an additional need for 9 the court to also “admonish the jury not to place undue emphasis on the supplemental instruction and to consider it in conjunction with the entire charge.” Forbes, 918 S.W.2d at 451 (citing Burton, 394 S.W.2d at 876-77 ).

2015See, e.g., State v. Robinson, 239 S.W.3d 211, 226-28 (Tenn. Crim.

2010State v. Robinson, 239 S.W.3d 211, 228 (Tenn. Crim.

2023The supplemental instruction also may not require a dissenting juror to “consider whether his [or her] doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression on the minds of so many other [jurors], equally honest, and equally intelligent with [themselves].” Id.

2007The Court of Appeals first determined that the supplemental instruction violated the standard adopted in Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139, 144 (Tenn.1975), observing that the trial court made reference to the time and expense incurred for the trial and then made a comment critical of the requirement for a unanimous verdict. 2 After concluding that the language might have coerced the single dissenting juror into surrendering a conscientiously held position and thereby affected the verdict, the Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs a new trial.

2019Because the terms intentionally and knowingly have specific definitions in our legal code, see T.C.A. § 39-11-302, and it was the trial court’s duty to instruct the jury as to those legal definitions, see Teel, 793 S.W.2d at 249 , the definitions of intentionally and knowingly are clearly part of “the general charge to the jury containing [t]he rules of law which the jury is called upon to apply in the particular case,” McElhaney, 420 S.W.2d at 646 , rather than merely a supplemental instruction clarifying the prior instructions.

2004In his brief, the defendant asserts that he suffered prejudice from his inability to address the jury’s interpretation of the words “offered” and “impending,” relative to the sequence of events. -5- “[A] defendant has a constitutional right to a correct and complete charge of the law.” State v. Teel, 793 S.W.2d 236, 249 (Tenn. 1990).

2016“A trial court has the authority to respond to jury questions with a supplemental instruction.” Id. at 451 .

2015“A trial court has the authority to respond to jury questions with a supplemental instruction.” Id. at 451 .

2024See, e.g., United States v. Slaughter, 128 F.3d 623, 629 (8th Cir. 1997) (providing that “reargument was not required” where the trial court’s instruction in response to a jury question during deliberations “neither amended nor added a new element to the indictment’s charge”); United States v. Fontenot, 14 F.3d 1364, 1368 (9th 5 This provision is currently set forth in Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.1(d).

2024See, e.g., United States v. Slaughter, 128 F.3d 623, 629 (8th Cir. 1997) (providing that “reargument was not required” where the trial court’s instruction in response to a jury question during deliberations “neither amended nor added a new element to the indictment’s charge”); United States v. Fontenot, 14 F.3d 1364, 1368 (9th 5 This provision is currently set forth in Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.1(d).

2018“In the event of an omission or an otherwise incomplete instruction to the jury, as opposed to an erroneous one, a party has the duty to seek a supplemental charge, or else waives the issue.” State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440 , 447 n. 3 (Tenn. 2010); see also State v. Haynes, 720 S.W.2d 76, 85 (Tenn. Crim.

2017In re Estate of Chastain, 401 S.W.3d 612, 618-19 (Tenn. 2012). 8 The indispensable requirements *639 mandated by the Execution of Wills Act requires the testator to either sign the will in the presence of the attesting witnesses, or acknowledge a signature already made in the presence of attesting witnesses, or direct someone else to sign the will in the presence of the testator and of the attesting witnesses.

2015See Butler, 880 S.W.2d at 399 .

2014Please refer to the elements in the charge defining the offenses.” A defendant is entitled to “a correct and complete charge of the law governing the issues raised by the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Brooks, 277 S.W.3d 407, 412 (Tenn. Crim.

2010See Burns v. State, 591 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tenn. Crim.

2009We are aware that a criminal defendant is entitled to a correct and complete charge of the law, State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000), and that the trial court may give a supplemental instruction when questioned by the jury, State v. Moore, 751 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tenn. Crim.

2009We are aware that a criminal defendant is entitled to a correct and complete charge of the law, State v. Garrison, 40 S.W.3d 426, 432 (Tenn. 2000), and that the trial court may give a supplemental instruction when questioned by the jury, State v. Moore, 751 S.W.2d 464, 467 (Tenn. Crim.

2007See State v. Lynn, 924 S.W.2d 892, 898-99 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Tenn. R.

1999The defendant notes that a “charge should be considered prejudicially erroneous if it fails to fairly submit the legal issues or it if misleads the jury as to the applicable law,” State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997), and he argues that the supplemental instruction had this effect.

1996Ass’n v. Anderson, 676 S.W.2d 328, 336 (Tenn. 1984). -12- The Tennessee Supreme Court has recently reviewed a medical malpractice case in which the trial court used a supplemental instruction requesting an advisory verdict substantially similar to the instruction involved in this case.