Does a jury have to reach a unanimous verdict?

Of course, when the court issues supplemental jury instructions, it must do so "'without coercion of the jury, so as to avoid displacing the jury's independent judgment "in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency." [Citation.]' [Citations.] [] Directing further deliberations is proper where the trial court reasonably concludes that 'such direction would be perceived "'as a means of enabling the jurors to enhance their understanding of the case rather than as mere pressure to reach a verdict on the basis of matters already discussed and considered.' [Citation.]" [Citation].' [Citation.]" (People v. Whaley, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.)

Viewing the supplemental instructions as a whole, we see the emphasis was indeed on facilitating the jurors' increased understanding of the case. (People v. Whaley, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) The court gave examples of how, through the employment of different methodologies, enhanced understanding could be achieved. We see no reason why the court could not reasonably have concluded that the supplemental instructions would be perceived as furthering the attainment of that objective. This is especially so where the jury had deliberated for only four hours before sending its question to the judge.

Page 11

Defendant maintains that the supplemental instructions were coercive. He says "the instruction[s] did not really indicate that not reaching a verdict was an option." But the court is not obligated to tell the jury that not reaching a verdict is an option. (See People v. Virgil, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1282.) Suggesting to a jury that it need not reach a verdict could "'diminish[] the jurors' sense of duty to deliberate, and to be open to the ideas of fellow jurors.'" (Cf. People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 402.)

Defendant points to the portion of the supplemental instructions wherein the court stated: "Now, when you reach verdicts, have the foreperson date and sign the appropriate verdict forms. Place all other verdict forms in the envelope and notify the bailiff." He contends this instruction, especially when given in response to the question the jury asked, clearly implied that a unanimous verdict had to be reached. However, "'[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.' [Citation.]" (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016.)

Here, the supplemental instructions also stated: "Your goal as jurors should be to reach a fair and impartial verdict if you are able to do so . . . without regard for the consequences of your verdict regardless of how long it may take you to do so." (Italics added.) They further stated, "it is your duty to deliberate with the goal of arriving at a verdict if you can do so." (Italics added.) "'"Jurors are presumed to be intelligent, capable of understanding instructions and applying them to the facts of the case."' [Citations.]" (People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 130.) Here, the supplemental instructions, when read together, directed the jurors to reach a verdict if they could, and, assuming they could, to convey their verdict to the court through the foreperson and the bailiff.