N.M. R. Crim. P. Dist. Ct. 5-609

As amended through May 8, 2024

Rule 5-609 - Submission to jury

A.Foreman. The court shall direct the jury to select one of its members as foreman to preside over its deliberations.

B.Forms of verdict. Before the jury retires the court shall submit to it written forms of verdict for its use in returning a verdict.

C.Exhibits. Upon its request to review any exhibit during its deliberations, the jury shall be furnished all exhibits received in evidence.

N.M. R. Crim. P. Dist. Ct. 5-609

Committee commentary. - Paragraph C of this rule, allowing the exhibits to go to the jury room upon the request of the jury, modifies the holding in State v. Valles, 83 N.M. 541, 494 P.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1972). In that case, the court of appeals held that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to allow exhibits to go to the jury room. Under Paragraph C of this rule, if the jury requests any one exhibit, all exhibits should go in as a way of preventing undue emphasis being placed on one of the exhibits. Because the submission to the jury is automatic upon request under this rule, it is not error for such submission to take place when the defendant and his attorney are not present. State v. Riordan, 86 N.M. 92, 519 P.2d 1029 (Ct. App. 1974). See also, State v. Chavez, 86 N.M. 199, 521 P.2d 1040 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 86 N.M. 189, 521 P.2d 1030 (1974).

ANNOTATIONS Amount of time to be spent in deliberation is a matter for the jury to determine and there is nothing in the nature of things to prevent a jury from being so overwhelmed by the evidence that they need not leave the jury box to reach a verdict. State v. Mosier, 1971-NMCA-138, 83 N.M. 213, 490 P.2d 471 (decided under former law). All exhibits received in evidence are to be furnished to the jury if the jury requests any exhibit. State v. Chavez, 1974-NMCA-021, 86 N.M. 199, 521 P.2d 1040, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 189, 521 P.2d 1030. Subdivision (c) (see now Paragraph C) permitting jury to review any exhibits during deliberations does not exclude recorded exhibits. State v. Fried, 1978-NMCA-097, 92 N.M. 202, 585 P.2d 647, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 260, 586 P.2d 1089. Jury listening to tape recording during deliberations not prejudicial. State v. Fried, 1978-NMCA-097, 92 N.M. 202, 585 P.2d 647, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 260, 586 P.2d 1089. Magnifying glass in jury room proper. - Enhancement of the jury's visual acuity through use of a magnifying glass is not experimentation unless there is some indication that the magnification produced additional evidence. State v. Griffin, 1993-NMSC-071, 116 N.M. 689, 866 P.2d 1156. Defendant's presence when exhibits requested or delivered. - This does not require that the defendant and his attorney be present when jury's request to review exhibits is received nor when the exhibits are delivered. State v. Riordan, 1974-NMCA-013, 86 N.M. 92, 519 P.2d 1029. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1365 et seq.