BOOKER THOMAS LINCOLN, 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 the trial judge's comments to the jury, after they reported a deadlock, were intimidating and potentially coerced a verdict, thus requiring a new trial.
The defendant was convicted of selling cocaine. During deliberations, the jury reported a three-three deadlock. The judge instructed them to "get back…
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 Hung Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lincoln seeks review of his conviction for the sale of cocaine. He contends the court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a proper inquiry into a discovery violation by the state. He further asserts that certain comments by the trial court deprived him of his right to a fair trial by coercing the jury to return a verdict.
We find Lincoln’s first point to be without merit. Although the court’s inquiry into the state’s breach of the discovery rules was brief, the inquiry was sufficient to allow the court, in its discretion, to determine that no prejudice to Lincoln resulted therefrom. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
However, we agree with Lincoln’s contention that certain comments by the trial court necessitate a new trial. After the jury had deliberated about an hour, the jury sent a note to the court indicating “We have a three-three deadlock. What is our next step?” After the jury returned to the courtroom, the foreman of the jury explained: “We were hung. We wanted to know what the procedure was”. In response, the court stated:
“Ya’ll haven’t even talked. Ya’ll haven’t been back there any time at all and ya’ll go in and listen to each other and get back in there and arrive at a verdict.”
Defense counsel objected to this charge. After another hour of deliberation, a verdict of guilty was returned.
The court’s statement to the jury to “get back in there and arrive at a verdict” can hardly be characterized as the standard “alien charge” or “dynamite charge”. It was at least subject to being intimidating to the jurors to return a verdict and it may well have deprived Lincoln of his right to a “hung jury”. Bell v. State, 311 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Accordingly, Lincoln’s conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and SMITH and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1986)…not so simple. We must here join the courts which have scrutinized extemporaneous deadlock instructions with an eye towards ensuring that no false duty to decide was suggested, Nelson v. State, 438 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Lincoln v. State, 364 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), that the verdict returned was not coerced, Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965), and that the instructions were “balanced,” encouraging neither acquittal nor conviction. State v. Bryan, 29…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Ernie Lee Bell v. State, 311 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)