PEOPLE OF MI V JOHN ALLEN ROUSE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
November 2, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 262417
Dickinson Circuit Court
LC No. 04-003271-FH
JOHN ALLEN ROUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Official Reported Version
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Jansen and Cooper, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Late in the afternoon of the second day of deliberations, the jury
informed the trial court that it was at an impasse. The trial court observed that no rule dictated
how long the jury would be allowed to deliberate, but noted that if the jury could not reach a
verdict, another trial would be required. The trial court then commented that no juror should
change his or her views solely for the sake of reaching a verdict and read CJI2d 3.12, the
deadlocked-jury instruction. The jury deliberated for an additional five hours after being
instructed to continue deliberating. The jury convicted defendant of two counts of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c.
In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324, 335, 341-342; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), our Supreme
Court adopted American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 5.4 for the instruction that should be
read to a deadlocked jury. The Sullivan Court held that any substantial departure from that
instruction would constitute error requiring reversal. Id. at 342. CJI2d 3.12 is based on ABA
Standard 5.4.
Before reading CJI2d 3.12 to the jury, the trial court advised the jury that if it did not
reach a verdict, a new trial would be required. However, immediately thereafter the trial court
emphasized that no juror should change his or her honest beliefs simply for the sake of reaching
a verdict. The trial court then read CJI2d 3.12, which also cautions that a juror should not
relinquish his or her honest beliefs simply to reach a verdict. Contrary to defendant's assertion,
the jury did not return its verdict shortly after hearing these instructions. Instead, the jury
deliberated for approximately five more hours. During this time span, the jury responded to an
inquiry from the trial court by indicating that it wished to continue deliberating.
The trial court's remarks did not appeal to the jury's sense of civic duty and did not
suggest a failure of purpose. People v Hardin, 421 Mich 296, 316; 365 NW2d 101 (1984). Nor
-1-
did the trial court's remarks coerce the jurors by informing them that they were required to reach
a verdict. Quite simply, the trial court's statement that another trial would be necessary if the
jury could not reach a verdict did not suggest that the jury should take a different approach to its
deliberations. Accordingly, the remarks did not constitute a substantial departure from the
instruction mandated by Sullivan. People v Johnson, 112 Mich App 41, 48; 314 NW2d 794
(1981) (holding that "the court's mention of the possibility of a successor jury was not a
departure from the proper instruction mandated in Sullivan"); see also People v Pollick, 448
Mich 376, 380-388; 531 NW2d 159 (1995); Hardin, supra at 317-318.
Because the jury instructions given in this case were not improperly coercive, and
because they did not substantially depart from CJI2d 3.12, I would affirm.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.