Gibbons v. People, 328 P.3d 95

Colorado modified-Allen instruction historically aims to encourage verdicts without coercion.
Raglin (Colo.App. 2000) imposed a mistrial advisement requirement tied to unverifiable unanimous verdicts.
Gibbons (Colo.App. 2011) adopted a per se rule that such advisements are inherently coercive.
This case (Gibbons) granted certiorari to determine if mistrial advisement is required in a modified-Allen instruction.
Court held that mistrial advisement is not required and overruled Raglin’s advisement requirement; discretion exists in rare circumstances.
Gibbons was decided alongside companion cases addressing whether such advisements are permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mistrial advisement is required with modified-Allen	Gibbons argues Raglin rule requires advisement	People argue discretion; not per se required	Not required; discretion reserved for rare circumstances
Whether Raglin is consistent with precedent	Raglin aligns with Schwartz and McNeely	Raglin inconsistent with Allen framework	Overruled Raglin as inconsistent with precedent
Whether per se rule against advisements is valid	Gibbons adopts coercive-evidence view	People urge case-by-case inquiry	Per se rule rejected; discretionary approach adopted

Allen v. People, 660 P.2d 896 (Colo. 1983) (modified-Allen approved; time-fuse disapproved as coercive)
Allen, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896) (origins of Allen instruction; minority coercion concerns)
People v. Raglin, 21 P.3d 419 (Colo.App. 2000) (mistrial advisement requirement (overruled))
People v. Grace, 55 P.3d 165 (Colo.App. 2001) (adoption of Raglin approach questioned (overruled))
McNeely, 222 P.3d 370 (Colo.App. 2009) (assessing modified-Allen objections; no automatic mistrial advisement)
People v. Richardson, 184 P.3d 755 (Colo. 2008) (discretionary authority in mistrial decisions)
Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1984) (modulated use of the modified-Allen instruction; cautions against coercion)