State v. Gantnier, 2008 ME 40

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed Daniel S. Gantnier's conviction for unlawful sexual contact. The court held that the trial court's instructions requiring the jury to continue deliberating after reporting difficulty reaching unanimity were not impermissibly coercive when viewed in their totality. The court concluded that the instructions appropriately allowed the jury to remain deadlocked and did not require a verdict or suggest that a deadlock would constitute failure.

Holdings

1. The supplemental instruction was not impermissibly coercive because, viewed in the context of the instructions as a whole, it permitted the jury to remain deadlocked and did not require the jurors to reach a verdict.
2. The court was not required to repeat the full admonition every time it communicated with a potentially deadlocked jury; additional instructions must be noncoercive and must make clear that a deadlock is not unacceptable, although the court should reassert the ABA admonition if substantial time passes between reinstructions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's supplemental instruction directing a potentially deadlocked jury to continue deliberating and review the verdict form count by count was impermissibly coercive.
2. Whether the trial court was required to repeat, in every subsequent communication with a potentially deadlocked jury, the admonition that jurors should not surrender their honest beliefs merely to reach a verdict.

Disposition

affirmed