RONALD ANTHONIO COGMON, 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.
Ronald Anthonio Cogmon appeals his conviction for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a state prisoner, arguing the jury verdict was not unanimous. The court reverses because during jury polling, juror Searcy clearly repudiated the guilty verdict, indicating she did not independently agree with it but merely acquiesced to the majority after an Allen charge.
The court held that the trial court erred by accepting the verdict. Because juror Searcy dissented from the verdict during polling and there was no subsequent unanimous verdict, a mistrial should have been declared and the case must be reversed for a new trial.
[1] A jury verdict is not unanimous when a juror, upon being polled, expresses disagreement with the verdict, even if the juror initially agreed to it in the jury room.
[2] When a juror dissents from a verdict during polling, the court must direct the jury to be sent back for further deliberation.
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“If the majority, five of them, would say he was guilty that there was no alternative.”
Establishes that juror Searcy believed she had no choice but to agree with the majority, rather than independently reaching the guilty verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the jury deliberated for one and one-half hours, the trial court gave the jury an 'Allen' charge. Forty-five minutes later, the jury returned gu…
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 Polling cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals his conviction of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a state prisoner. He contends the verdict of the jury was not unanimous, and therefore the court erred in accepting it and denying his motion for mistrial and his motion for a new trial.
After the jury deliberated for one and one-half hours, the court called it back and gave it an “Allen” charge.
Forty-five minutes later, the jury returned with verdicts of guilty to both charges.
The defense requested that the jury be polled and the clerk proceeded to do so.
When the clerk came to juror Searcy, the transcript of the trial shows the following: “MRS.
CLERK: Mrs.
Searcy, was that your verdict of guilty on both counts?
JUROR SEARCY: (Shakes head negatively.) It wouldn’t agree with my conclusions, no.
THE COURT: I didn’t hear that.
JUROR SEARCY: I said that I turned in a guilty plea, but it wouldn’t agree with my conclusions if I got up and said that it was.
THE COURT: But that is the verdict you reached in the jury room?
JUROR SEARCY: Yes.
THE COURT: And that’s the verdict that has just been read here?
JUROR SEARCY: Yes. * * * * * * THE COURT: Mrs.
Searcy?
JUROR SEARCY: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Did I correctly understand you to say that arriving at this verdict or reaching this verdict you did bothers your conscience?
JUROR SEARCY: Yes, sir. THE COURT: But that you still felt that was the verdict to be reached with the other members of the jury?
JUROR SEARCY: I felt like this.
If the majority, five of them, would say he was guilty that there was no alternative.
THE COURT: But that you independently arrived at that verdict along with the other five members of the jury.
Is that correct?
JUROR SEARCY: Well, at the end, yes, I did.”
In the above questioning of Juror Searcy by the court, it is apparent that she did not agree with the verdict but just went along with it after the “Allen” charge because she felt that she had no other alternative if five of the other jurors did not agree with her. It was not explained to her that she did not have to agree to the verdict simply because the other five jurors agreed.
After stating that the verdict would not agree with her conclusions, she was asked if that was the verdict she reached in the jury room and she said yes, but it is clear that on being polled she repudiated that agreement and thereafter did not disavow the repudiation.
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.450 states as follows: “Upon the motion of either the State or the defendant or upon its own motion, the court shall cause the jurors to be asked severally if the verdict rendered is their verdict.
If a juror dissents, the court must direct the jury be sent back for further consideration; if there be no dissent the verdict shall be entered of record and the jurors discharged.
Juror Searcy having dissented from the verdict and there having been no subsequent unanimous verdict, a mistrial should have been declared.
Reversed for a new trial.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thomas, 405 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ial court at such time should not preclude the trial court, after appropriate inquiry, from granting a new trial when he is in doubt as to the unanimity of the verdict. Crapps v. Murchek, 330 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Compare: Cogmon v. State, 338 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Rule 3.440 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we sustain the action of the trial judge in granting a new trial with the caveat to the bar that only in exceptional circ…
-
Brutton v. State, 632 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…e jury for further deliberation or to inquire as to the meaning of the ambiguous statement made by the juror. Here, the juror’s initial statement that she did not agree with the verdict rendered was a repudiation of her verdict. In Cogmon v. State, 338 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), the juror announced during polling that the verdict “wouldn’t agree with my conscience.” Although the juror conceded that she had “independently arrived at the verdict along with the other five members of the jury,” she felt tha…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 627 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…erdict was violated. He points out that under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.450, that if, while being polled, a juror dissents from the verdict “the court must direct that the jury be sent back for further consideration.” In Cogmon v. State, 338 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), forty-five minutes after being read an Allen1 charge, the jury returned with verdicts of guilty to both charges. One of the jurors upon being polled, indicated it was not her verdict and that she acquiesced in it only because th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence