MICHAEL JAMES WEBB, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Michael Webb was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree after a jury received a modified Allen charge and subsequently delivered a guilty verdict within minutes. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court's statements to the jury constituted fundamental error by coercing jurors into reaching a unanimous verdict.
The trial court's instruction constituted fundamental error. Although Allen charges are permissible, they may not be couched in terms that coerce the jury into reaching a verdict or coerce individual jurors to change positions to achieve unanimity. Under these circumstances, the error was sufficiently egregious to require reversal and a new trial.
[1] A jury instruction that tends to coerce the jury into reaching a verdict or to coerce a juror to change positions to achieve unanimity is impermissible.
[2] A coerced verdict in a criminal case deprives the accused of a fair trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An Allen charge is permissible, but the general rule is subject to the caveat that an instruction may not be couched in terms which may tend to coerce the jury into reaching a verdict or to coerce a member of the jury to change positions in order to achieve a unanimous decision.”
Establishes the legal standard for Allen charges in Florida and identifies the critical limitation on their use.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWebb was tried for attempted murder in the second degree. After five hours of deliberation, the jury submitted a question to the trial court through j…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Unanimity cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
This case involves a modified Allen charge {Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896)), given to the jury after five hours of deliberation. Within minutes of receiving the charge the jury found appellant guilty of attempted murder in the second degree. This appeal followed. We reject the other grounds for reversal urged by appellant and comment only on the following colloquy between the trial court and juror Weinberg:
MR. WEINBERG: May I ask a question, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. WEINBERG: If one juror is not able to render a decision at all, whether it be whatever it is, and the other jurors can, does that mean we cannot make a unanimous decision?
THE COURT: It must be unanimous.
MR. WEINBERG: It does not involve an alternate?
THE COURT: The alternate is not for this purpose.
MR. WEINBERG: We’ve gone through each one’s testimony and it seems that one juror cannot make a decision. I think it’s too much of an emotional and heavy burden to make a decision of this degree. It’s possible, after some food and rest, it could be different. This is a very serious case and we want to give it the most attention it can get.
THE COURT: All I can tell you is that the verdict must be unanimous. It must be six votes and it has to be rendered tonight.
An Allen charge is permissible, but the general rule is subject to the caveat that an instruction may not be couched in terms which may tend to coerce the jury into reaching a verdict or to coerce a member of the jury to change positions in order to achieve a unanimous decision. Jones v. State, 92 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1956); Nelson v. State, 438 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Kozakoff v. State, 323 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert, denied, 336 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1976); Bell v. State, 311 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
A coerced verdict in a criminal case deprives the accused of a fair trial and is contrary to the mandate of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Florida. Whether the coercive instruction constitutes fundamental error depends upon its egregiousness and whether a corrective instruction would have obliterated the taint. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold the error to have been fundamental. See Rodriguez v. State, 462 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1985). A new trial is required.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999)…e appearance that the jury had to render a verdict); Rodriguez v. State, 559 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (judge’s comment to jury that it had been deliberating for almost three hours over a three-witness case was fundamental error); Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (judge’s statement that jury verdict had to be unanimous and rendered on that night was coercive and fundamental error); Heddleson v. State, 512 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (trial judge’s comments which led the jury to believe…1 / 2
-
Gahley v. State, 567 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…dlines, (2) threats of marathon deliberations, (3) pressure for the surrender of conscientiously held minority views, and (4) any implication of a false duty to decide. United States v. Cheramie, 520 F. 2d 325 (5th Cir.1975). See also Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Heddleson v. State, 512 So. 2d 957, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Lewis v. State, 369 So. 2d 667, 669 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); United States v. Barshov, 733 F. 2d 842 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1158, 105 S.Ct. 904, 83 L.E…
-
Scoggins v. State, 691 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…860. A coerced verdict in a criminal case infringes upon two rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution — the right to a fair trial under the due process clause and the right to an impartial jury. Article I, §§ 9, 16, Fla. Const.; Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). For example, although the use of a jury deadlock charge has long been sanctioned by the courts, Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 237, 108 S.Ct. at 550; Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 2…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896)
- Jones v. State, 92 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1956)
- Kozakoff v. State, 323 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Ernie Lee Bell v. State, 311 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Berry Nelson v. State, 438 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Orestes Rodriguez v. State, 462 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)