|
The
"Chip Smith" Charge
 "Everything old is new again." We've
all heard this phrase before, and this is certainly the case with
the Chip Smith charge. The charge derives from State v.
Smith, 49 Conn. 376 (1881). James "Chip" Smith was a 21-year-old who
was drinking, firing off his gun and causing a general disturbance
of the peace one afternoon in December of 1880. His behavior forced
his father out into the street and to the home of Daniel J. Hayes,
the chief of police for the borough of Ansonia. The elder Mr. Smith
begged Mr. Hayes to come and arrest his son. Mr. Hayes went in
search of Chip, found him in a downtown street and tried to arrest
him. A struggle ensued, and Chip shot Hayes in the abdomen. Hayes
later died of his injuries. James "Chip" Smith was tried for and
convicted of Hayes' murder. In an opinion reviewing Smith's
conviction, the Connecticut Supreme Court set forth language
concerning the duty of jurors when deliberating. This language
became known as the Chip Smith charge, and trial courts
repeatedly gave the charge to jurors when they reported that they
were deadlocked.
Over the years, the Chip Smith
charge became an established part of
 Connecticut jurisprudence.
However, the instruction was often challenged as being coercive and
implying that a juror in the minority should "give in" to the
majority for the sake of unanimity. Recently, in State v. O'Neil,
261 Conn. 49 (2002), the instruction was challenged once again, and
our old Chip Smith charge was given a new dressing.
In State v. O'Neil, the defendant was
on trial for murder. After some deliberation, the jurors
reported to the court that they were unable to agree. The trial
court delivered a Chip Smith instruction to the deadlocked
jury. Later that same day, the jury returned a guilty verdict. On
appeal, the defendant argued that the Chip Smith charge had
coerced the jury into reaching a verdict. In its decision, the
Connecticut Supreme Court upheld O'Neil's conviction and the use of
the Chip Smith charge. However, the Supreme Court set forth a
modified version of the charge to be used by trial courts in future
cases. Henceforth, judges must remind jurors that they should vote
their consciences and not "acquiesce in the conclusion of their
fellow jurors merely for the sake of arriving at a unanimous
verdict." The version of the Chip Smith charge adopted for
use today strikes a balance between encouraging a unanimous verdict
and protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial.
_______________________________
For further reading see:
State v Smith, 49
Conn. 376 (1881);
State v
O'Neil, 261
Conn. 49 (2002). Borden & Orland. 5 Connecticut Practice Series:
Criminal Jury Instructions §4.4 3rd ed. West, 2001. Yules. 6
Connecticut Practice Series: Trial Practice §11.18 2nd ed. West,
2000. Wright & Ankerman. 1 Connecticut Jury Instructions (Civil)
§18(1) 4th ed. Atlantic, 1993.
Dose
of Connecticut Legal History
|
