State v. Knight, 993 N.W.2d 528

Jeremy Knight was tried on two counts of gross sexual imposition; jury deliberated the second day of trial.
Early in deliberations the jury sent a note indicating a deadlock and showing numerical divisions (8–4 and 9–3).
The court informed the jury to "go back... review the evidence again and try and come to unanimous verdict," and sent them back to deliberate; no objection or mistrial motion was made at the time.
The jury later returned a unanimous guilty verdict on Count 2 and remained hung on Count 1; the verdict was polled and confirmed.
After trial, Juror No. 6 declared she believed the court required a unanimous verdict and would have stayed hung on both counts if she had known otherwise; Knight moved to vacate the judgment and for a new trial.
The district court denied the motion, refusing to consider the juror's declaration under N.D.R.Ev. 606(b) and finding the court’s admonition to continue deliberating was not coercive; Knight appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Knight)	Held
Whether the court coerced the jury by instructing them to continue after learning the numerical split	The instruction merely encouraged further deliberation and was not coercive under the totality of the circumstances	The court’s knowledge of the numerical division and its admonition pressured jurors into a verdict, producing a coerced result	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; statement to "try" to reach unanimity was not coercive given short deliberations, reasonable hour, absence of other coercive factors, and no contemporaneous objection
Whether the court erred by refusing to consider Juror No. 6’s post‑verdict declaration	Juror’s declaration concerns internal mental processes and is inadmissible under N.D.R.Ev. 606(b)(1); no exception applies	The juror’s statement shows misunderstanding/coercion and should be considered to grant a new trial	Affirmed — Rule 606(b) bars using juror affidavits to impeach verdicts about deliberative mental processes; no applicable exception was shown

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) (origin of the Allen charge encouraging deadlocked jurors to deliberate further)
State v. Champagne, 198 N.W.2d 218 (N.D. 1972) (modified Allen charges permissible when jurors are reminded not to abandon honest convictions)
Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (1926) (trial court may not inquire into the extent of a jury’s numerical division)
State v. Kovalevich, 858 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial rulings and requirement to assert errors with particularity)
Andrews v. O’Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 1986) (prohibits juror affidavits to impeach verdicts based on jurors’ mental processes)
Mauch v. Mfrs. Sales & Serv., Inc., 345 N.W.2d 338 (N.D. 1984) (reinforces Rule 606(b) limits on juror testimony about deliberations)
Rosales v. State, 548 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. Ct. App. 2018) (no coercion where judge, after being told of a deadlock, told jurors to continue deliberating)
Com. v. Greer, 951 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (knowledge of numerical division does not automatically render a subsequent instruction coercive)