{
  "id": 5164536,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. GUNN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Gunn",
  "decision_date": "1992-11-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201491\u20140559",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "237 Ill. App. 3d 508"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "508 N.E.2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ill. 2d 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5543502
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/116/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 N.E.2d 728",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. App. 3d 927",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3563408
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/127/0927-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "454 N.E.2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. 2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5515941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/97/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 N.E.2d 835",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. 2d 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5489808
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/77/0524-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 4715,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30294855028227513
    },
    "sha256": "76a77b6129d057bd797ed8dccda659129bcee49e970345bdc0a5f7cb99dd0b63",
    "simhash": "1:b6bf580ff9f48af4",
    "word_count": 837
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:32:17.971536+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. GUNN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HAASE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial, the defendant, James H. Gunn, was convicted of two counts of perjury (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 32\u20142). He was subsequently sentenced to a 42-month prison term. The sole question on review is whether the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial when one of the polled jurors, who may have been in tears, answered in the negative when asked whether the verdict was his.\nThe record shows that a guilty verdict signed by all the jurors was returned by the jury. After the verdict was read, the defendant requested that the jury be polled. The following exchange then took place:\n\u201cTHE COURT: All right, the Clerk is going to poll you. What she\u2019s going to say to you individually she\u2019s going to call your name out and she\u2019s going to say something like was this and is this your verdict. You must answer either yes or not [sic].\nThe Clerk: Judith Line were these and are these now your verdicts?\nJuror: Yes.\nThe Clerk: Jason Bergraph was [sic] these and are these now your verdicts?\nJuror: No. I don\u2019t know what\u2014\nTHE COURT: All right, I\u2019m not going to do anything at this time. What I\u2019m going to do is I\u2019m going to send you back and let you discuss again for a little while as to what you want to do and then you let me know where you are after you have had some time. All right, we\u2019ll send everything back.\n* * *\nDefense Counsel: I don\u2019t know if the Court noticed was Mr. Bergraph when, I mean he was- in tears here when he was going back to the Jury room and I don\u2019t know if a mistrial might not be in order.\nThe Prosecutor: It could be that he misunderstood the question asked to him.\nTHE COURT: Yes. I\u2019m not sure. That\u2019s why I didn\u2019t want to pry into it. I didn\u2019t want him, to ask if he misunderstood my question or if he understood it and had second thoughts or I wanted to give him time to think about it and decide with the other Jurors as to exactly what he wanted to do. If he comes back out twenty minutes or whatever it might take and says no that\u2019s not my verdict then we\u2019ll have to go from there.\u201d\nAfter further deliberations, the jury returned to the court and again returned guilty verdicts on both counts of perjury. This time, no dissent was expressed by any of the jurors during the polling of the jury-\nThe purpose of polling is to afford the juror the opportunity, free from the influences of the jury room, to express whether or not he assents to the verdict. (People v. Kellogg (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 524, 397 N.E.2d 835.) When polling the jury, the trial judge must be careful not to hinder a juror\u2019s expression of dissent. (People v. Williams (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 252, 454 N.E.2d 220.) However, the trial judge must also be careful not to make the polling process another arena for deliberations. If a juror indicates some hesitancy or ambivalence in his answer, then the trial court must ascertain the juror\u2019s present intent by affording the juror the opportunity to make an unambiguous reply as to his present state of mind. Once the trial judge determines that a juror dissents from the verdict, then the proper remedy is for the trial judge to either direct the jury to retire for further deliberations or to discharge it. (People v. Kellogg (1979), 77 Ill. 2d 524, 397 N.E.2d 835; People v. Lark (1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 927, 469 N.E.2d 728.) A trial judge\u2019s determination of the voluntariness of a juror\u2019s assent to the verdict will not be set aside unless it is clearly unreasonable. People v. Cabrera (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 474, 508 N.E.2d 708.\nWe agree with the State that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter. Bergraph apparently dissented from the verdicts. The trial court made clear in its response to Bergraph that, following further deliberations with the other jurors, Bergraph was free to let the court know where he stood on the verdict. Further questioning of Bergraph in open court might have tainted the rest of the jurors. After further deliberations, the second polling indicated the jurors\u2019 unequivocal assent to their verdicts. Under these circumstances, we hold that the remedy chosen by the trial court was proper.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBARRY, P.J., and McCUSKEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HAASE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Judith L. Libby, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Marshall E. Douglas, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES H. GUNN, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201491\u20140559\nOpinion filed November 24, 1992.\nJudith L. Libby, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nMarshall E. Douglas, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 528,
  "last_page_order": 530
}