Fain v. People
329 P.3d 270
Colo.2014Background
- Colorado Supreme Court consider whether trial court must inform jury of mistrial if deadlocked when giving a modified-Allen instruction in Fain and companion cases.
- A modified-Allen instruction encourages, but does not coerce, a deadlocked jury to reach unanimity, and may include a mistrial advisement in rare circumstances.
- A line of appellate authority in Colorado had required mistrial advisement, beginning with Raglin (Colo.App. 2000) and later divisions.
- Gibbons held a mistrial advisement is not required and trial courts have discretion to inform about mistrial when appropriate.
- Fain argued the lack of mistrial advisement coerced jurors; the court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
- The Court ultimately held that no mistrial advisement is required, and discretion exists to include it in rare cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial advisement required in modified-Allen instruction? | Fain: Raglin requires advisement. | Gibbons: advisement not required. | Not required; discretion to include in rare cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. People, 660 P.2d 896 (Colo. 1983) (approval of the non-coercive modified-Allen instruction)
- Raglin v. People, 21 P.3d 419 (Colo.App. 2000) (mistrial advisement requirement declared coercive in later decisions)
- Gibbons v. People, 328 P.3d 95 (Colo. 2014) (no duty to give mistrial advisement with modified-Allen instruction)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1984) (standard to review for abuse of discretion in jury instructions)
- Lewis v. People, 676 P.2d 682 (Colo. 1984) (requires inquiry into likelihood of progress before modified-Allen instruction if no progress noted)