People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725 (1978)

A trial court may encourage jurors to adhere to their oaths and make one final effort to review the evidence and reach a verdict, but it must not coerce or compel the jury to reach a particular verdict.

Summary

After five hours of deliberation, a jury was unable to reach a verdict. The trial judge gave a supplemental charge encouraging them to renew their deliberations. Approximately 90 minutes later, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The defendant appealed, arguing that the judge’s supplemental instructions were coercive. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that while the judge’s approach was not ideal, the instructions did not amount to impermissible coercion because the judge simply asked the jury to exert its best efforts and renew deliberations without singling out jurors or threatening them.

Facts

The jury deliberated for five hours without reaching a verdict.

The trial court instructed the jury that the case was simple compared to others, some of which last months, but that the jury was expected to come to a verdict.

The court noted that sometimes juries cannot reach a verdict and that a deadlock had occurred recently in a more involved case.

The court urged the jury to renew deliberations and to “make every effort possible to arrive at a verdict.”

Approximately one and a half hours later, the jury returned a guilty verdict.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s supplemental instructions to the jury were impermissibly coercive.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court’s supplemental instructions to the jury, given after the jury announced it was unable to reach a verdict, were impermissibly coercive.

Holding

No, because the trial judge simply asked the jury to exert its best efforts and renew deliberations. The judge did not impermissibly single out jurors for noncompliance with the majority, nor were any jurors improperly threatened.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that a trial judge must not coerce or compel a jury to agree upon a particular verdict, citing People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 259. The court stated that supplemental charges which prod jurors through prejudicial innuendoes or coerce them with untoward pressure to reach an agreement will not be countenanced.

However, the court also recognized that a trial court may properly discharge its responsibility to avoid mistrials by encouraging jurors to adhere to their oaths and make one final effort to review the evidence and reach a verdict, citing People v. Faber, supra, p. 258.

The court distinguished the present case from cases where the supplemental charge was found to be coercive. The court found that the trial judge in this case simply asked the jury to exert its best efforts and renew deliberations. The judge did not single out any jurors, threaten them, or suggest that the jury would be forced to continue deliberations indefinitely without communication. The court noted that the defendant’s general objection was unsupported by a timely request for an additional charge.

The court emphasized that while the trial judge’s approach may not have been ideal, it did not cross the line into impermissible coercion.