Miller v. State

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, James Lemar Miller, was convicted of assault with intent to maim by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County and a sentence of five years was imposed. In this appeal, it is contended; inter alia, that the trial judge committed reversible error “in giving sua sponte an ‘Allen charge’, after the jury had deliberated an hour and twelve minutes.” We agree. In the course of the trial, which began at 2:10 p.m. on October 9, 1969, it was brought out that Miller was sitting in a local tavern drinking beer when a man by the name of Hess approached him.

An argument concerning Hess’s so-called common-law wife then ensued. Miller testified that Hess “accused me of going with his wife.” Hess asserted that he simply inquired of Miller “if the ¹⁵⁹ old lady had sent him up there to check on me.” Miller testified that Hess “hit me on the side of the jaw.” This was denied by Hess who testified that Miller struck him from behind with a glass of beer resulting in a severe laceration of the neck and causing him to fall backward in such a manner as to break his leg. At the conclusion of the testimony, the jury was given instructions on the law by the trial judge, listened to the arguments of counsel and retired to consider its verdict at 3:28 p.m. According to the record, “at 4:40 o’clock p.m., the jury was returned to the court room and the following proceedings were had: THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, the Court observes that you have had this matter under consideration now for about an hour and a half.

Do you feel there is any possibility of reaching a decision in the case? THE FOREMAN: I think so. THE COURT: You, the foreman. THE FOREMAN: Yes, I think there is.

THE COURT: It is a rather simple case. I don’t understand the complication. It is not a grave matter that takes days to consider. Let me remind you, members of the jury, of certain principles regarding the law.

You are instructed that there are many cases in which absolute certainty cannot be expected. Although the verdict must be on the verdict of each individual juror as a result of his own convictions and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, each one of you should examine the questions submitted with candor and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of the others. It is your duty to decide this case if you can conscientiously do so, and you should listen with a disposition to be convinced to each others arguments. If your views are contrary to those of the vast majority you should consider ¹⁶⁰ whether your views, which make no impression on the minds of so many equally intelligent jurors, are correct. ...

So you will return to the jury room and deliberate further in the light