People v. Young (2007)

In People v. Young (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1165, the jury sent a note indicating it was deadlocked. The foreperson represented that there was uncertainty "how the lesser charges work with the robbery." (Id. at p. 1170.) After discussion with the jury, the trial court reopened closing argument for both parties. The Third District Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not make coercive remarks or instructions, and by reopening argument helped the jurors reach a verdict in a neutral procedure. (Id. at p. 1172). In that case, the jury advised the court that it was deadlocked and that "it was unclear whether 'there's 100 percent understanding from everyone in the box . . . how the lesser charges work with the robbery.'" (Id. at p. 1170.) The court referred the jury to the instructions, and the foreperson responded that "the problem appeared to be a disagreement on 'the perception of the facts' and [he] did not believe any additional time would be helpful in reaching a verdict." (Ibid.) The rest of the jury agreed that neither additional time nor instruction would be helpful. (Ibid.) The court asked whether further argument from the attorneys might be helpful, and some of the jurors indicated that it would be. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the court reopened closing argument for both parties. (Ibid.) In determining that the trial court acted within its inherent authority and did not abuse its discretion in reopening closing argument, we explained, "There is authority guiding the trial court's actions with respect to the order of a jury trial and its obligations upon being faced with a deadlocked jury. Section 1093 delineates the order that trial procedures shall follow, including the direction that the prosecutor and defense counsel may argue the case to the court and jury upon the close of evidence. ( 1093, subd. (e).) Section 1094 grants the trial court broad discretion to depart from the order specified in section 1093. Section 1140 entitles the trial court to ascertain whether there is a reasonable probability a jury deadlock might be broken. When the court is faced with a deadlocked jury, it must proceed carefully, lest its actions be viewed as coercive. At the same time, when faced with questions from the jury, including that they have reached an impasse, 'a court must do more than figuratively throw up its hands and tell the jury it cannot help. It must at least consider how it can best aid the jury.'" (Id. at pp. 1171-1172.) "By asking if additional argument might be helpful, the court did no more than ascertain the reasonable probability of the deadlock being broken and a means by which that might be accomplished. When some of the jurors agreed additional argument might help them in reaching a verdict, it was not inappropriate for the court to seek to offer that alternative to aid the jury." (Id. at p. 1172.)