Guilty as charged? Acquittal? A hung jury? All the ways the trial of Hedley’s Jacob Hoggard can end

A jury is on their fourth day of deliberating whether Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard is guilty of violently raping a teenage fan and a young woman in 2016.

On Thursday morning, the jury told the court they were deadlocked on some counts" and Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts urged the jury to continue trying to reach a unanimous verdict on all counts.

Hoggard, 37, is charged with two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and one count of sexual touching of a minor. The identities of both women are covered by a publication ban available to sexual assault complainants.

Since continuing deliberations, the jury has asked questions linked to the accounts given by both complainants, first seeking to hear back the testimony of the teen complainant's best friend about the events of Sept. 30, 2016 - the day Hoggard allegedly raped the complainant in a hotel room near Pearson airport.

The jury later asked a question about how they could use a 15-minute phone call between Hoggard and the other complainant, a young woman from Ottawa, days after he allegedly raped her and that he recorded without her knowledge.

In the call the young woman sounds upset and tells Hoggard he pushed her to the point where it was just so painful" as she tried to say no.

Roberts instructed the jury that they could not use the statements made in the call by the complainant that are consistent with her testimony at trial to find she is telling the truth - consistencies do not equal truth. But they can use the call to evaluate the complainant's credibility by considering her state of mind, demeanour and sound of her voice, as well as any inconsistencies and her explanations for them, she said.

On Friday morning the jury asked a follow-up question for a legal definition of someone's state of mind and how it can be applied. Roberts explained that state of mind is beliefs, perceptions, emotions, intentions and said the jury could draw inferences about the complainant's state of mind from the call.

You could infer from the call ... that she is upset," she said. If you draw that inference ... you then have to ask yourself what is she upset about?"

The Crown argued she is upset because she had been sexually assaulted by Hoggard. The defence has argued she was upset because she was humiliated after consensual sex.

If you draw the inference that she is upset because she has been sexually assaulted, you then can consider her upset state as a piece of circumstantial evidence tending to support her credibility that she was sexually assaulted," the judge said.

The jury has been permitted to consider that there are striking similarities in the accounts of both women, though they do not know each other and have never spoken. The defence has argued some of those similarities can be explained because of Hoggard's sexual preferences during consensual sex.

The jury has been left with several possible verdicts:

• They could find Hoggard guilty or not guilty of sexual touching of a minor - the charge related to the allegation that Hoggard groped and tried to kiss the teenage fan when she was 15.

• They could find Hoggard not guilty or guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm in relation to each complainant's allegation of violent rape in a hotel room.

• They could also find Hoggard guilty of sexual assault without causing bodily harm - a finding that could mean they do not believe the injuries and psychological harm described by the complainant does not meet the standard for bodily harm.

• The jury could also be deadlocked on one, more or all of the charges - a hung jury. When a jury cannot come to a unanimous verdict on one or multiple charges, a mistrial is declared on those charges. The Crown would then decide if they wanted to prosecute on those charges a second time.

• A jury can also come to a verdict on some charges, but be deadlocked on others.

Juries do not give reasons for their decisions and it is a criminal offence for them to reveal what was discussed during their deliberations.

Alyshah Hasham is a Toronto-based reporter covering crime and court for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @alysanmati