Case Title: State v. Clark

Citation: 227 Or. 391, 362 P.2d 335

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1961-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed May 31, 1961.
Kenneth A. Poole, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Marvin J. Weiser, District Attorney, Dallas, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY, GOODWIN and LUSK, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from a conviction of rape. The record contains ample evidence to sustain the *392 conviction. Error is assigned to the giving of the following instruction:
The defendant objects to the italicized language. He has brought to our attention a number of well-reasoned decisions from other states, each of which might be said to stand for the proposition that it is prejudicial error to advise a jury that the defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal. Many of *393 the cases hold that it is misconduct for the prosecuting attorney to employ such advice in his argument. See, for example, People v. Linden, 52 Cal2d 1, 338 P2d 397; People v. Beggs, 178 Cal 79, 172 P 152. Others hold that the court may not say anything which might tend to relieve the jury of its grave responsibility in deciding guilt or innocence. See Holt v. The State, 2 Ga App 383, 58 SE 511; Hodges v. The State, 15 Ga 117 (1854). Contra, State v. Seaman, 10 NJ Super 439, 77 A2d 284, cert den. 6 NJ 456. See, also, cases collected in Annotation, 132 ALR 679.
1. The question is one of first impression in Oregon. It is common knowledge among the bar that many of Oregon's ablest trial judges have, for years, employed words similar to those challenged in the case at bar, not with the intent to cause a jury to shirk its responsibility in deciding the facts, but rather with the intent to impress upon the jury its responsibility to accept the law as it comes from the court.
After examining the authorities cited, we are of the opinion that the challenged portion of the instruction should not have been given. It may be debatable whether such words merely tell the jury something they already know, or whether such an instruction indeed could have the tendency supposed by the defendant in this case. Nevertheless, when a jury is told that a higher court will correct any error of law, one or more jurors might erroneously believe that the defendant will have a hearing de novo in the Supreme Court. People v. Silverman, 252 App Div 149, 297 NYS 449. The possibility of prejudice is sufficient reason to discontinue the practice of giving such an instruction.
2. It does not follow, however, that the present case must be reversed. The record reveals that the challenged *394 instruction was part of an exceptionally able charge to the jury. We cannot read the record without being impressed with the solemnity of the duty imposed upon that jury and the fairness with which the trial judge conducted the proceedings. It is not every error which justifies reversal. There must be prejudice. State v. Libbey, 224 Or 431, 356 P2d 161; State of Oregon v. Cahill, 208 Or 538, 293 P2d 169, 298 P2d 214, cert. den. 352 US 895, 77 S Ct 132, 1 L Ed2d 87; State v. Folkes, 174 Or 568, 150 P2d 17, cert. den. 323 US 779, 65 S Ct 189, 89 L Ed 622.
3. In reviewing the evidence in the case at bar we cannot say either that there was prejudice in the challenged instruction, or that any inference of prejudice is justifiable. The defendant admitted intercourse but denied force. There was impartial medical evidence as well as other proof of force. On the entire record, we hold that the error in giving the challenged instruction was not reversible.
Affirmed.