TAURUS MOORE, 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.
The court held that giving a deadlock charge to the jury without indication of deadlock, and on the same afternoon deliberations began, was error requiring reversal.
[1] A trial court errs in giving a deadlock charge to the jury over objection when there is no indication of a deadlock.
[2] A jury is generally free to determine its own method of deliberation without court instruction on the specific manner of conducting deliberations.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court gave a deadlock charge to the jury on the same afternoon deliberations began, over the appellant's objection. The jury subsequently re…
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 Coerced Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand with directions for a new trial and for reassignment to a different judge. We agree -with appellant that the trial court erred in giving a deadlock charge to the jury, over appellant’s objection, on the same Friday afternoon that the jury began deliberations, and at a time when there was no indication that the jury was deadlocked. See Armstrong v. State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert, denied, 373 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1979).
Ordinarily, a court should not instruct a jury as to the specific manner in which deliberations are to be conducted, and the jury is free to determine its own way of resolving the case. A “deadlock” charge or “dynamite” charge is a narrow exception to this rule, intended for use just as the appellations indicate, when there is reason to conclude that a jury is deadlocked, but while there is still hope that a verdict can be reached. The parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity for the deliberative process to work before the court places any-added pressure on the jury to decide the case. In Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we noted the danger of suggesting to the jury that it must decide the case within a limited time frame: “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.”
Here, a jury that was in the routine course of deliberating was called into the courtroom and treated as if it had found it “impossible” to decide the case. The jury was also told that it should attempt to resolve its differences by a certain procedure, and if that procedure failed a mistrial would be declared. As in Webb, the jury returned a guilty verdict within a few minutes of receiving the deadlock charge from the judge.
We also find error in the trial judge’s use of improper reasons in sentencing the appellant. Consequently, although the sentencing issue is moot, we remand for further proceedings before a different judge.
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Civil Cases-Report NO. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions). In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases-Report No. 09-02 (Greater Weight of the Evidence, 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)…delay, your request should be as specific as possible. You may now return to the jury room for further deliberations. [*806] NOTES ON USE FOR 801.3 1. This instruction should not be given unless the jury indicates it is deadlocked. Moore v. State, 635 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Armstrong v. State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). 2. This instruction should be given only once. If after having received this instruction, the jury announces again that it is deadlocked, the jury cannot be sent back for…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013)…avoid delay, your request should be as specific as possible. You may now return to the jury room for further deliberations. NOTES ON USE FOR 801.3 1. This instruction should not be given unless the jury indicates it is deadlocked. Moore v. State, 635 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Armstrong v. State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). 2. This instruction should be given only once. If after having received this instruction, the jury announces again that it is [*347] deadlocked, the jury cannot be sent b…
-
Blackman v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Webb v. State, 519 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Armstrong v. State, 364 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)