2014 CO 68
Colo.2014Background
- Colorado consolidated appeals examine modified-Allen jury instructions and whether a mistrial advisement is required.
- Martin was charged with first-degree murder and related offenses; she claimed self-defense and battered-wyst syndrome claims at trial.
- The jury reported deadlock; the court contemplated a modified-Allen instruction and later provided it.
- A second instruction directed continued deliberations after polling indicated no unanimous verdict; a verdict was eventually returned with a foreperson's initial non-unanimous stance.
- Martin challenged the omissions of a mistrial advisement under Raglin, arguing coercion toward a verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Raglin required here? | Martin: mistrial advisory required under Raglin. | People: Raglin strictness not required for modified-Allen. | No, mistrial advisement not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. People, 660 P.2d 896 (Colo. 1983) (Allen instruction is non-coercive)
- Raglin, 21 P.3d 419 (Colo. App. 2000) (mistrial advisement required in some modified-Allen contexts)
- Gibbons v. People, 328 P.3d 95 (Colo. 2014) (trial court not required to give mistrial advisement with modified-Allen; discretion allowed)
- Fain v. People, 329 P.3d 270 (Colo. 2014) (context on modified-Allen instruction considerations)
- Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1984) (whether to inquire about progress toward verdict before modified-Allen)