Utah Court of Appeals
Can trial courts discuss scheduling with deliberating juries without creating coercive instructions? State v. Clements Explained
Summary
Steven Clements was convicted of DUI and open container violations after being found intoxicated in a vehicle at a campground. After two hours of deliberation, the trial court called the jury out to discuss scheduling, offering to reconvene the following week if they could not reach a verdict that evening, and the jury requested a few more minutes to deliberate before returning with guilty verdicts.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Steven Clements was arrested for DUI and open container violations after being found intoxicated behind the wheel of a Ford Explorer at a Payson Canyon campground. The keys were in the ignition, and Clements had a blood alcohol content of 0.157 percent. At trial, the only disputed issue was whether Clements had physical control of the vehicle when confronted by deputies. After two hours of jury deliberation, the trial court called the jury out to discuss scheduling, offering to reconvene the following week if they could not reach a verdict that evening.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court’s comments to the jury constituted an impermissibly coercive supplemental jury instruction. Clements argued that the court’s statement that “[y]ou have to make up your minds, folks” and expression of hope for an evening verdict coerced the jury into reaching a guilty verdict.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals distinguished this case from traditional Allen instructions given to deadlocked juries. The court emphasized that the jury never declared itself deadlocked or indicated difficulty reaching a verdict. Instead, the trial court was addressing scheduling constraints and offering alternatives: reconvening the following week, declaring deadlock, or reaching a verdict that evening. When the jury foreperson requested “two minutes” more, the court accommodated this request without mandating a verdict. The court held that the two-tiered coerciveness analysis from State v. Lactod applies only when a jury has announced deadlock, not to scheduling discussions with non-deadlocked juries.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for trial courts managing jury deliberations. Courts may address practical scheduling matters without triggering Allen instruction analysis, provided the jury has not declared deadlock. However, practitioners should note that any comments suggesting pressure to reach a verdict require careful scrutiny. The decision reinforces that context matters significantly in evaluating potential jury coercion, and courts should clearly distinguish between logistical accommodations and verdict-urging instructions.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Clements
Citation
1998 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 971411-CA
Date Decided
October 22, 1998
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court’s comments to a jury that has not announced it is deadlocked, merely offering scheduling alternatives and accommodating the jury’s request for additional deliberation time, do not constitute impermissibly coercive supplemental jury instructions.
Standard of Review
Correction of error standard for questions of law regarding the propriety of jury instructions
Practice Tip
When addressing logistical scheduling issues with a deliberating jury, ensure the jury has actually declared deadlock before applying the Allen instruction coerciveness analysis, as non-deadlocked juries receive different treatment under Utah law.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.