When the Jury Asks a Legal Question, the Judge Can't Say the Answer Is for the Jury to Decide

Michael Sanders v. United States, No. 14-CF-129 (decided July 2, 2015)

Players:  Associated Judges Thompson and McLeese, Senior Judge Pryor.  Opinion by Judge McLeese.  PDS for Mr. Sanders.  Trial Judge:  Patricia A. Broderick.

Facts:  There was evidence that Mr. Sanders unsuccessfully tried to get money and a phone from a fellow Metro passenger -- unsuccessfully -- and then hit the passenger as he was getting off the train.  The government charged Mr. Sanders with assault with intent to rob (AWIR).  The jury was instructed that one of the elements of AWIR as that Mr. Sanders had the intent to rob "at the time" of the assault.  During deliberations, the jury asked if an intent to rob immediately prior to the assault counts as "at the time" of the assault.  The defense said the answer should be no, the government said the answer should be yes.  Rather than resolve the issue, the trial court told the jury that the answer to the question was "for the jury to decide."

Issue:  Did the trial court adequately answer the jury's question about whether the assault and intent to rob must coincide by telling the jury it should decide?

Holding:  No.  The jury asked a legal question and, at least by the time of the appeal, everyone agreed that the answer to the question was that the intent to rob must exist at the same time as the assault. The court could not leave that legal question up the jury.  The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury could have concluded that Mr. Sanders intended to rob the complainant at first when he asked him for money and a phone, but no longer had the intent when he was hit the complainant on his way off the train.  DG

Read full opinion here.