Cited by

While the trial court could have given the supplementary instruction approved by this court in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , the trial court, without objection from counsel, instead simply asked the jury to retire and consider whether it was hopelessly deadlocked or whether it wished to adjourn, spend the night in a hotel, and reconvene for further deliberations in the morning.

“THE JURY: Thank you.” Appellant argues that these statements constitute a coercive charge, similar to the so-called “Allen charge” disapproved by this court in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 362 , : “You should consider that this case must at some time be decided * * * .” The clear import of the court’s question in the instant case, however, was to inquire of the jurors whether their deliberations would continue late into the evening.

See, State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359

State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359 , State v. Williams, 297 Minn. 76 , State v. Sharich, 297 Minn. 19 , State v. White, supra.

8 see, also, State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 373 , in which this court proscribed the use of the so-called “Allen” charge by which trial judges urged deadlocked juries to reach a verdict, largely in an effort to minimize the potentially coercive effect upon the jury minority of “having the prestige of the court brought to bear on i

1 Further, we are not persuaded by defendant’s principal argument that the judge’s words and conduct amounted in coercive effect to a so-called “Allen” charge, which was declared improper by State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359