Lafayette v. State
2012 Miss. LEXIS 305
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Lafayette was convicted of manslaughter after a jury deadlocked and the judge stated he would call a new jury to avoid expense if possible.
- The jury indicated a 10–2 split and some urged further deliberation while others felt unanimity might be unattainable.
- The judge instructed the jurors that they should continue deliberating and could rely on common sense, but warned against surrendering one's own convictions.
- Lafayette’s counsel moved for a mistrial after the deadlock was disclosed; the motion was denied and the jury returned a manslaughter verdict.
- On appeal, Lafayette challenged four trial-court instructions; the Sharplin issue is dispositive, governing how to instruct a deadlocked jury.
- This Court reverses and remands for a new trial due to improper comments about costs and calling another jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge’s comments about calling another jury/coercion violated Sharplin | Lafayette | State | Yes; improper coercive comments require reversal. |
| Whether plain-error doctrine allows reversal despite failure to object | Lafayette can rely on plain error | Waiver applies; no plain error | Yes; plain-error reversal appropriate given deviation from Sharplin. |
| Whether Sharplin instruction was properly applied after deadlock | Only Sharplin-approved options allowed | Sharplin instruction followed | Improper deviation; coercive language voids the instruction. |
| Whether trial court's overall approach violated due process rights | Fundamental rights harmed | Trial complied with applicable rules | Reversed and remanded for new trial. |
| Whether the Court should affirm in part if not all issues require reversal | Not applicable; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591 (Miss. 1976) (two permissible deadlock instructions; coercive comments prohibited)
- Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1983) (predecessor to Sharplin guidance; errors prejudicial)
- Edlin v. State, 523 So.2d 42 (Miss. 1988) (injury from improper comment; Sharplin framework applied)
- Bolton v. State, 643 So.2d 942 (Miss. 1994) (danger of coercion when adding Allen-like charge)
- Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820 (Miss. 1985) (illustrates improper commentary proximity to verdict)
- Flora v. State, 925 So.2d 797 (Miss. 2006) (plain-error standard applied for fundamental rights)
- Grubb v. State, 584 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1991) (plain-error/applicability where fundamental rights affected)
- McGee v. State, 953 So.2d 211 (Miss. 2007) (defines plain-error prejudice assessment)
- Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316 (Miss. 1989) (acknowledges exceptions to waiver for plain error)