State v. GrayState v. Gray
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Green
Claudie Gray was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer and three alternative counts of fleeing and attempting to elude a police officer. In the present case, we must determine whether Gray is entitled to a new trial where the trial court fails to inquire in open court, before the jurors are discharged, whether the juiy agrees with the verdict just announced by the foreperson. We determine that a jury verdict rendered and announced in open court that does not follow the statutory mandate of
*523 court to inquire whether the verdict is the jury’s verdict, is reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Gray contends that the trial court erred when it failed to ask the jury whether the verdict that was announced was its verdict. Before accepting a verdict and discharging the jury, Kansas law requires trial judges to comply with the provisions of
“ ‘The verdict shall be written, signed by the presiding juror and read by the clerk to the jury, and the inquiry made whether it is the jury’s verdict. If any juror disagrees, the jury must be sent out again; but if no disagreement is expressed, and neither party requires the jury to be polled, the verdict is complete and the jury discharged from the case. If the verdict is defective in form only, it may be corrected by the court, with the assent of the jury, before it is discharged.’ ” (Emphasis added.)K.S.A. 22-3421 .
First, the trial judge must inquire as to the jury’s verdict. Second, the trial judge must, if asked by either party, poll the jury. The trial judge complies with the first requirement by asking the jury collectively: “Is this your verdict?” The trial judge satisfies the second requirement (if requested by either party) by asking each juror individually: “Is this your verdict?” See State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760, 770-71, 175 P.3d 239 (2008) (“While trial courts do not have to be letter perfect’ in their polling procedures and language, the better practice is to poll the jury in such a way as to ensure that each juror is answering for him or herself, e.g., asking, ‘Is this your verdict?’ ”).
Here, because Gray never requested polling of the jury, he waived his right to have the jury individually polled. See State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1059, 1075, 198 P.3d 769 (2008) (“In the absence of a request by either party to poll the jury, . . . the trial court [does] not err in fading to individually poll the jury.”).
Nevertheless, as stated earlier, Gray asserts that the trial court erred when it failed to ask whether the verdict was the jury’s verdict. Moreover, Gray argues that the trial court violated
On the day that the jury reached its verdict, the following occurred:
“THE COURT: Foreman of the jury. Have you reached a verdict?
“PRESIDING JUROR: Yes, we have, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Would you hand the verdict form to Mr. Miller and I’ll look at it.
“(The verdict was delivered to the Court.)
“THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I think, Mr. Hageman, I do this sometimes. Sometimes I get on a — on a lack. Sometimes I read it. Sometimes I have the foreman read it, and today I feel like I am going to let you read it. So would you read the verdict? It is — just start out In The District Court and go all the way down, okay, and read it‘.
[The presiding juror then read the verdict on all four of the counts against Gray.]
“THE COURT: All right. Does either side wish to have the jury polled?
“MR. STANTON: No, Your Honor.
“MR. TIMAN: No, we don’t.”
The court then excused the jury. The court did not ask the jury after reading the verdict whether it was the jury’s verdict.
There is no dispute that the trial court did not ask the juiy whether the verdict was the jury’s verdict. In Johnson, we held that the trial court’s failure to inquire as to whether the verdict was the jury’s verdict was reversible error. The State, however, asserts that Johnson is distinguishable from this case because unlike Johnson, there were no concerns about the unanimity of the jury’s verdict. Nevertheless, the Johnson court held that “until the inquiry is made and the trial court is satisfied that the verdict is truly unanimous, the verdict is not complete.” 40 Kan. App. 2d at 1077.
The reason why
*525
“By requiring inquiry as to whether the verdict is the jury’s verdict,
The trial court’s failure to follow the statutory mandate of
Because we have determined that there was reversible error in this case, it is unnecessary to address Gray’s remaining arguments raised in his appeal.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.