Summary
This Delaware Supreme Court opinion reviews whether a trial court's supplemental instruction to a deliberating jury, issued after a juror requested an ex parte meeting, constituted a coercive Allen charge. The appellant argued the instruction warranted a new trial, but the court determined it merely denied the improper request and directed the jury to continue deliberations without urging a verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the motion for a new trial and upheld the defendant's second-degree rape conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the supplemental instruction given to the jury constituted a coercive Allen charge.
Holdings
- The supplemental instruction was not an Allen charge; therefore the conviction is affirmed.
Key quotations
“An Allen charge is “a supplemental instruction encouraging the jury to reach a verdict” and amounts to “a request from a trial court to the jury to attempt to come to a decision without abandoning any firmly held beliefs.”” (at 9)
“The Instruction was only four sentences long and directly responded to a request posed by a juror.” (at 10)
Factual background
Smith had a sexual encounter with his step‑daughter C.M. in the home of his partner Jessica Gibbs. After the incident, the jury deliberated, sent a note indicating a deadlock, received an Allen charge, and later a supplemental instruction responding to a juror’s request for a meeting. The jury subsequently returned a guilty verdict.
Procedural history
Smith was convicted of second-degree rape in the Superior Court of Delaware. He moved for a new trial, arguing that a supplemental instruction to the jury was a coercive Allen charge. The Superior Court denied the motion, and Smith appealed.