22-3420.
Conduct of jury after submission.
(a) When the case is finally submitted to the jury, they shall retire for deliberation. They must be kept together in some convenient place under charge of a bailiff until they agree upon a verdict, or be discharged by the court, subject to the discretion of the court to permit them to separate temporarily at night, and at their meals. The bailiff having them under such bailiff's charge shall not allow any communications to be made to them, or communicate with them, unless by order of the court. Before the jury's verdict is rendered the bailiff shall not communicate to any person the state of their deliberations, or the verdict agreed upon. No person other than members of the jury shall be present in the jury room during deliberations.
(b) If the jury is permitted to separate, either during the trial or after the case is submitted to them, they shall be admonished by the court that: (1) It is their duty not to converse with, or allow themselves to be addressed by any other person on any subject of the trial, and that any attempt to do so should be immediately reported by them to the court; (2) it is their duty not to make any final determinations or express any opinion on any subject of the trial until the case is finally submitted to them; and (3) such admonition shall apply to every subsequent separation of the jury.
(c) In the court's discretion, upon the jury's retiring for deliberation, the jury may take any admitted exhibits into the jury room, where they may review them without further permission from the court. If necessary, the court may provide equipment to facilitate review.
(d) The jury shall be instructed that any question it wishes to ask the court about the instructions or evidence should be signed, dated and submitted in writing to the bailiff. The court shall notify the parties of the contents of the questions and provide them an opportunity to discuss an appropriate response. The defendant must be present during the discussion of such written questions, unless such presence is waived. The court shall respond to all questions from a deliberating jury in open court or in writing. In its discretion, the court may grant a jury's request to rehear testimony. The defendant must be present during any response if given in open court, unless such presence is waived. Written questions from the jury, the court's response and any objections thereto shall be made a part of the record.
(e) The jury may be discharged by the court on account of the sickness of a juror, or other accident or calamity, or other necessity to be found by the court requiring their discharge, or by consent of both parties, or after they have been kept together until it satisfactorily appears that there is no probability of their agreeing.
(f) The amendments to this section by this act establish a procedural rule, and as such shall be construed and applied retroactively.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3420; L. 2014, ch. 102, § 7; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
114
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bolze-Sann, 352 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Bolze-Sann, 352 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2015).
· cites it 49× “Under K.S.A. 22-3420 before it was amended in 2014, it was error for a district court to discuss and answer outside the defendant's presence a question received from the jury during its deliberations.”
State v. Boyd, 891 P.2d 358 (Kan. 1995).
· cites it 28× “Shortly after the jury had reconvened, it brought in a verdict of guilty to two counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of battery. We now turn to the issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error in its responses to the jury's requests for a…”
State v. King, 305 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 8× “However, the Burns decision did not cite K.S.A. 22-3420(3), and it did not mention the rest of the Coyote court’s analysis, which is contrary to the implication of the Bums decision.”
State v. Herbel, 299 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 7× “22-3405(1), he points out that K.S.A. 22-3420(3) specifically addresses a defendant’s right to be present during jury deliberations.”
State v. Gonzalez, 412 P.3d 968 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 4× “3d 511 (2015) ("We have never characterized a district court's failure to comply with the deliberating jury procedures provided in K.S.A. 22-3420 [3] or later statutes as a violation of the constitutional right to a public trial.”
State v. Bowen, 323 P.3d 853 (Kan. 2014).
· cites it 5× “at 968 (failure to comply with K.S.A. 22-3420[3] violates constitutional right to be present); but see Cheffen, 297 Kan.”
State v. Kahler, 410 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 6× “He points to K.S.A. 22-3420(3) to argue the jury had a right to ask questions.”
State v. Armstrong, 324 P.3d 1052 (Kan. 2014).
· cites it 4× “) According to Armstrong, telling the jurors that they each had an opinion about the case violated K.S.A. 22-3420(2), which requires the trial court to admonish the jury at every break “that it is their duty not to converse with, or allow themselves to be addressed by any other…”
State v. Butler, 897 P.2d 1007 (Kan. 1995).
· cites it 6× “We further concluded: "K.S.A. 22-3420(3) states that the testimony `shall be read.”
State v. Cooper, 366 P.3d 232 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Likewise, the State has not asked us to reexamine the rationales or holdings of those cases, either on their own merits or in fight of the recent changes to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3420 expressly permitting district courts to answer a jury question during deliberation in writing.”
State v. Barlett, 418 P.3d 1253 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 3× “2d 236 (1994) (construing K.S.A. 22-3420 [3] [Torrence 2007] ). In State v.”
State v. Betts, 33 P.3d 575 (Kan. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Similarly, K.S.A. 22-3420(3) requires that once a jury has begun deliberations, any questions concerning the law or evidence pertaining to the case must be answered in open court in the defendant’s presence, unless the defendant is voluntarily absent.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(1) — 2 cases
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(2) — 5 cases
State v. Armstrong, 324 P.3d 1052 (Kan. 2014).
“) According to Armstrong, telling the jurors that they each had an opinion about the case violated K.S.A. 22-3420(2), which requires the trial court to admonish the jury at every break “that it is their duty not to converse with, or allow themselves to be addressed by any other…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(3) — 87 cases
State v. Bolze-Sann, 352 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2015).
“Under K.S.A. 22-3420 before it was amended in 2014, it was error for a district court to discuss and answer outside the defendant's presence a question received from the jury during its deliberations.”
State v. Boyd, 891 P.2d 358 (Kan. 1995).
“Shortly after the jury had reconvened, it brought in a verdict of guilty to two counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of battery. We now turn to the issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error in its responses to the jury's requests for a…”
State v. King, 305 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2013).
“However, the Burns decision did not cite K.S.A. 22-3420(3), and it did not mention the rest of the Coyote court’s analysis, which is contrary to the implication of the Bums decision.”
State v. Herbel, 299 P.3d 292 (Kan. 2013).
“22-3405(1), he points out that K.S.A. 22-3420(3) specifically addresses a defendant’s right to be present during jury deliberations.”
State v. Kahler, 410 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2018).
“He points to K.S.A. 22-3420(3) to argue the jury had a right to ask questions.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(a) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(c) — 2 cases
State v. Barlett, 418 P.3d 1253 (Kan. 2018).
“2d 236 (1994) (construing K.S.A. 22-3420 [3] [Torrence 2007] ). In State v.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(d) — 17 cases
State v. Gonzalez, 412 P.3d 968 (Kan. 2018).
“3d 511 (2015) ("We have never characterized a district court's failure to comply with the deliberating jury procedures provided in K.S.A. 22-3420 [3] or later statutes as a violation of the constitutional right to a public trial.”
State v. Bolze-Sann, 352 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2015).
“Under K.S.A. 22-3420 before it was amended in 2014, it was error for a district court to discuss and answer outside the defendant's presence a question received from the jury during its deliberations.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3420(f) — 1 case
State v. Bolze-Sann, 352 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2015).
“Under K.S.A. 22-3420 before it was amended in 2014, it was error for a district court to discuss and answer outside the defendant's presence a question received from the jury during its deliberations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.