Drayton v. State, 297 Ga. 743

Phillip Drayton (age 55) was convicted of malice murder and related firearm offenses for shooting and killing Steve Fowler in a public housing project; trial lasted two days and resulted in convictions on five counts and acquittals on two.
Evidence at trial: prior threats by Drayton to shoot Fowler over an unpaid $15 loan; eyewitnesses identified Drayton as the shooter; Drayton admitted firing but claimed self‑defense.
After initial jury charge, the jury deliberated ~3 hours, reported unanimous agreement on six counts and an 11–1 split on malice murder (Count 1).
The trial court delivered a Georgia pattern modified Allen charge (supplemental instruction encouraging further deliberation) that included the sentence, “It is the law that a unanimous verdict is required.”
Shortly after the charge the jury deliberated ~30 more minutes and returned unanimous verdicts; the court polled jurors individually and each affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s supplemental Allen charge coerced the jury	Drayton: the sentence “It is the law that a unanimous verdict is required” coerced jurors by implying they must reach agreement and foreclosing a hung jury	State: the sentence accurately states the law that any returned verdict must be unanimous and, read in context, did not require agreement	No coercion; charge permissible when read in context and considering totality of circumstances

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) (review of alleged jury coercion looks to totality of circumstances)
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) (original formulation of charge encouraging juror agreement)
Romine v. State, 256 Ga. 521 (1986) (discussing variations of Allen charges)
Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63 (2010) (addressing ‘‘a unanimous verdict is required’’ language and coercion concerns)
Dukes v. State, 290 Ga. 486 (2012) (context of entire charge is critical; permissible to state unanimity requirement for any returned verdict)
Porras v. State, 295 Ga. 412 (2014) (appellate standard: evaluate whether charge caused juror to abandon honest conviction)
Mayfield v. State, 276 Ga. 324 (2003) (trial court discretion to give Allen charge; rejecting generalized coercion claim)
McKee v. State, 277 Ga. 577 (2004) (similar rejection of coercion claim where Allen charge included unanimity language)
Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32 (2009) (jury determines witness credibility; sufficiency standard reaffirmed)