Tenn. R. Crim. P. 31
Advisory Commission Comment.
This rule is similar to the federal rule, except that it contains no provision dealing with criminal forfeiture.
In cases where the court instructs the jury on the charged offense and one or more lesser offenses, and the jury reports an inability to reach a verdict, it is not always apparent on which offense the jury disagreed. The practice in Tennessee is to give sequential jury instructions that require a jury to consider guilty of the greatest charged offense before moving on to consider the lesser offenses. In some cases, the jury may acquit the defendant of the greater offense but be unable to reach a unanimous verdict on one or more lesser offenses. If the court grants a mistrial as to all offenses because of the jury’s failure to reach agreement on a lesser offense, the double jeopardy clause is implicated if the jury actually acquitted the defendant of one or more of the greater offenses but disagreed on a lesser one.
Subdivision (d) is intended to minimize double jeopardy issues and avoid releasing a jury without determining whether it reached agreement on some degree of the charged offense.
The rule provides for a sequential inquiry by the trial court, beginning with the greatest charged offense and continuing in descending order of offenses until the court determines at what level the jury has disagreed. The court must then determine whether the jury unanimously found the defendant not guilty of any greater offense. To eliminate ambiguity, the rule also provides for jury polling on a party’s request. Rule 30(e) also permits the court to poll the jury on the court’s own initiative.