State v. Boston

In State v. Boston, 191 N.C. App. 637, 643, 663 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2008), the Court held that the trial court did not err in giving the Allen instruction two hours after the jury had begun deliberating and two more times over a four-and-a-half-hour period, reasoning: In this case, the trial court never inquired as to whether the majority of the jury was in favor of guilt or innocence. In fact, the trial court specifically asked the jury foreman not to provide this information to the trial court. The record gives no indication that the trial court ever appeared frustrated with the jury or annoyed by the jury's failure to reach a verdict. Further, the trial court never threatened to hold the jury until it reached a verdict, and made no mention of the burden and expense of a retrial in the event the jury could not reach a verdict. The Court also noted that "each of the trial court's inquiries and Allen charges either immediately preceded or followed a natural break in jury deliberations . . . and the trial court never interrupted jury deliberations merely to inquire as to the jury's numerical division or to repeat the Allen charge." Id. See also Streeter, 191 N.C. App. at 504-05, 663 S.E.2d at 885 (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving Allen instruction after two hours of deliberation when record did "not show that the trial court attempted to coerce the jury into reaching a verdict").