Trial court did not err where it reopened argument following jury deadlock. Young appealed from his conviction for robbery, contending that the trial court had no authority to reopen closing arguments after the jury declared itself deadlocked. He argued that doing so resulted in a miscarriage of justice, violated his due process rights, and constituted improper jury coercion. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that there were no remarks by the court which were coercive. The court did not urge the jurors to agree nor show preference for a particular verdict. By asking them if additional argument would be helpful, it did no more than ascertain the reasonable probability of the deadlock being broken. Further the procedure was neutral, giving each side a brief opportunity to argue further. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.