Case Title: Pritchard v. State

Citation: 230 N.E.2d 416, 248 Ind. 566

Docket Number: 30,728

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1967-10-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
248 Ind. 566 (1967)
230 N.E.2d 416
PRITCHARD
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 30,728.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed October 11, 1967.
*567 John B. McFaddin, of Rockville, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, and Michael V. Gooch, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
HUNTER, C.J.
This is an appeal from a criminal action instituted and tried in the Parke Circuit Court before a jury. The appellant and her co-defendant husband, Ralph Pritchard, were charged in an indictment in one (1) count with violation of § 350, ch. 169 of the Acts of the Indiana General Assembly (1905) Burns' Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3404 (1956 Replacement) defining the offense of murder in the second degree.
After trial the jury returned its verdict finding the appellant guilty of manslaughter and finding her co-defendant, Ralph Pritchard, not guilty of any charge.
The motion for new trial and assignment of error presents two (2) propositions for this Court to decide. One of the allegations of error presented by the appellant on this appeal is that the state's instruction No. 24 which reads as follows:
was given by the court as a mandatory instruction. Said instruction was timely objected to and assigned as a specification of error in the appellant's motion for a new trial in the court below.
The appellant in his brief advances the proposition that the giving of such mandatory instruction is erroneous for the reason that it invades the province of the jury and is prejudicial to the appellant. In support of such contention the following citations of case law are advanced:
It would seem to us that in a consideration of mandatory instructions in criminal cases we are inevitably drawn back to the language of Art. 1, § 19 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana which reads as follows:
*569 We are cognizant of the rule as stated in Ewbank's Indiana Criminal Law, Symmes Ed., § 421, p. 264 which reads as follows:
A careful review of the case of McDonough v. State, supra, cited in support of said rule fails to reveal its applicability to the question here raised. The thrust of the McDonough opinion is to reaffirm the rule that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness and that the court has no right to invade that province. It does not bear by direct reference on the constitutional right of the jury to determine the law.
In the case of Flowers v. State, supra, that case was directed primarily to the burden of proof necessarily incumbent upon the State where a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is an issue in the cause.
In the McDonough case, this Court held that the appellant's tendered instructions numbered 2 and 4 would have required the trial court to instruct the jury on the testimony of a specific witness and would have required the jury to find that it could not believe any testimony given by such witness. This court in the McDonough case therefore approved the general instruction given by the court which reads as follows:
*570 And this Court then stated that the general instruction did not sufficiently cover the matter of the credibility of witnesses especially such a witness as Mogilner. On appeal this Court held that appellant's objections to the Court's refusal to give tendered instructions numbered 2 and 4 were not valid and could not be given to supplement the above general instruction for the reason that they were not proper and therefore were correctly refused by the trial court. The Court in said case stated:
The rule is well settled in this State that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness and the Court has no right to invade that province. Sparks v. State (1942), 220 Ind. 343, 347, 42 N.E.2d 40; Hammond v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 343, 344, 163 N.E. 262; Culley v. State (1923), 192 Ind. 687, 689, 138 N.E. 260. We construe the above cited cases as stating that an instruction in a criminal case is erroneous as invading the province of the jury to the extent that the Court would be intimating an opinion of the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given to their testimony.
In the case of DeBoor v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 87, 182 N.E.2d 250, cited in support of the rule as announced in Ewbank's, supra, the only element of said case considered or discussed by the Court in that opinion is recited as follows:
Therefore, it should be borne in mind that this was a comment upon a tendered instruction by the defendant that was mandatory *571 in nature and did not involve an instruction tendered by the State that was mandatory in nature and under the rule of the presumption of innocence of the defendant in regard to a State's mandatory instruction, would have no applicability to the question presented in this appeal. For to say that a defendant's mandatory instruction which was refused properly by the court inferentially would give the right to the State to ask for a mandatory instruction on the facts and the law, to-wit: "You shall find the defendant guilty" certainly would have to be construed as an invasion of the jury's right under the Constitution to find the facts and to determine the law.
Therefore it appears to us that the rule as stated in § 421, Ewbank's, supra, dealing with mandatory instructions in criminal cases is not supported by the cases cited there and do not in any way uphold the rule that a mandatory instruction on the facts and the law that would require conviction are proper under any circumstances.
In § 416, Ewbank's, supra, (1965-66 Supp.) under the general heading of JURY AS JUDGES OF LAW, the only and perhaps the leading case in Indiana, Beavers v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118, does not support the right of a trial court to give a specific mandatory instruction on the facts and the law in the case. While in the Beavers case, it was stated that the U.S. Supreme Court had said that Indiana and Maryland today are the sole survivors of an archaic constitutional provision that a jury may determine the law in criminal cases it is nevertheless recognized and is still the constitutional provision in Indiana. 52 Harvard Law Review (1939) and the Notre Dame Law Review in 1949 pp. 356-66 recognize that Indiana is among the few states which cling to what is there termed an outmoded relic. It is nevertheless still the constitutional rule in Indiana.
In the Beavers case, instruction no. 12 given by the trial court read as follows:
It should be readily noted upon a reading of said instruction that it is only a guideline, general in nature, which provides criteria for the jury in its approach to its serious duties in the trial of a criminal cause. The Beavers case concerned appellant's tendered instruction no. 9 which in the latter part thereof stated as follows:
This Court held that such instruction would have given the jury the specific right to disregard the law altogether and was clearly erroneous.
We are therefore convinced after a careful reading of the Beavers case that the primary rule decided therein was to *573 the effect that a defendant was not entitled to an in-instruction telling the jury that they may "disregard the law" and it further appears to us that in the Beavers case this Court was reaffirming the discussion of the Constitutional provision as found in Anderson v. State (1886), 104 Ind. 467, 4 N.E. 63. On petition for rehearing in Anderson we find the following statement referring to § 19 of Art. 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Indiana State Constitution:
Further in said case it is stated that this provision of § 19
Although the Anderson case, supra, stated that an instruction which tends to infer that the jury may "disregard the law" and determine the law "as it sees fit" is erroneous, the court nevertheless recognized that a jury had such power. But, said power was not founded on a legal or moral right. In other words the court seemed to recognize the power but cautioned that such privilege and immunity should properly, in a legal and moral sense, be exercised only with restraint.
Consequently, the jury is, not strictly speaking, the sole judge of the law in all its relations to a criminal case. However, the Anderson case, supra, does in fact state that they have the right to determine the law pursuant to the right conferred by the Constitution.
*574 In the case of Hudelson et al. v. State, supra, the Court stated as follows at p. 431:
It is also stated in Hudelson, supra, at p. 430:
In the exercise of such right it has been stated by our Supreme Court in Bryant v. State, supra, at p. 380:
In a discussion of the constitutional privilege afforded to juries in criminal cases:
Where the jury have been instructed under the Constitution that the jury have the right to determine the facts and the law, another instruction, mandatory in nature, taking that right and power away from them is not cured by the former. Newport v. The State (1894), 140 Ind. 299, 39 N.E. 926.
While it is the duty of the court to give instructions as to the law of the case, it is error to give instructions in criminal cases which seek to impose restrictions upon the minds and consciences of the jury when such instructions conflict with an express provision of the Indiana Constitution. Schuster v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 323, 99 N.E. 422.
Under our Constitution, a judge who gives the jury a binding, specific and mandatory instruction on the facts and law in a criminal case commits error thereby just as surely as the judge who instructs a jury that they may "disregard the law" as laid down by the court. 53 Am. Jur. 600, n. 16; 72 ALR 911. A mandatory instruction in a criminal case that would, in fact, bind the minds and consciences of the jury to return a verdict of guilty upon finding certain facts, clearly invades the constitutional province of the jury. We arrive at this conclusion because the clear and plain language of our Constitution, in declaring the right and power of the jury to determine the law in criminal cases, has a real and specific application to criminal prosecutions in this state.
Serious concern has often been expressed that under Art. I, § 19 of the Constitution of Indiana, the jury has the right to find a person guilty who should be acquitted. However, such a possibility is not, in our opinion, as serious a threat to the rights of a defendant as a specific and mandatory charge, such as is embraced in instruction number 24 which was given by the trial court in the instant *576 case. A trial court has an inherent power and duty by granting a motion for a new trial, to correct a "runaway" verdict which would convict an innocent man. And if that court fails in its responsibility, this Court has the same power and duty on appeal.
If to some it appears that Art. I, § 19 is an "outmoded relic," is "archaic," or is "anachronistic," (views in which we do not necessarily concur) then there is a very clear method for amending our Constitution which they may pursue. For the moment, however, we are governed by the general rule that constitutional provisions are to be liberally construed as they stand. We may not, under the guise of judicial interpretation, accomplish a constitutional amendment by judicial fiat, nor are we inclined to do so.
It appears to this Court that Art. I, § 19 taken in connection with the presumption of innocence is far from an outmoded, archaic anachronism. Rather, despite its venerable age, it appears to be in the vanguard of modern thinking with regard to the full protection of the rights of the criminal defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed with instructions that the cause be remanded for a new trial.
Jackson, Lewis, and Mote, JJ., concur.
Arterburn, J., dissents with opinion.
ARTERBURN, J.
The appellant was convicted of the charge of manslaughter of her one year old daughter because of failure to provide proper and sufficient medical attention and food to sustain life. The sole reason given in the majority opinion for reversing the conviction is that the court gave what is called a "mandatory" instruction, telling the jury that if they found the evidence proved the facts in the charge *577 alleged, they should find the defendant guilty. The instruction given is as follows:
It is admitted there is nothing incorrect in the legal statement of this so-called mandatory instruction. It does state the law correctly, but the mere form of language (the majority opinion concludes) is sufficient grounds for reversing this case. The instruction plainly tells the jury what they should do or what their duty is if the indictment is proved. In my judgment, this is a pure technicality, without merit, which reverses a conviction. It is to be deplored that a reversal of a conviction is based upon technical language of such nature alone.
A proper function of a court is to tell the jury what its duty is with reference to the law. Although it is true the constitution says the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, it also places upon the courts in our judicial system under Art. 7, Sec. 1, responsibilities with reference to a trial, including how to properly instruct the jury as to its duties.
I further point out that under the scope of the majority opinion, no mandatory instruction can properly be given to the jury, even though it correctly states the law. Such a principle is as injurious to a defendant as to the State in a criminal case. It cuts both ways, since likewise a court may not instruct a jury, telling it in a mandatory fashion that it should acquit a defendant if it finds the facts to be such as show his acts were in selfdefense in a homicide case, for example. In such a case the court would be infringing on the exclusive *578 province of the jury if we accept the theory of the majority opinion that the court cannot tell the jury what its duty is under the law.
If a jury may not be told by the court that if the indictment is proved beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant should be convicted (as the instruction in this case), then, likewise, under the purport of the majority opinion by a directed verdict (which, in fact, is a mandatory instruction) it may not tell the jury when it should acquit a defendant, since under the majority opinion, the jury is always the final judge of the law and the facts in a case under the interpretation given to the constitutional provision. If the jury is the "sole" or "exclusive" judge of the law and facts in a criminal case (which the constitution does not say, but which is the effect of the majority opinion) then a court may not set aside a jury verdict which it believes erroneously, under the law and facts, convicted an innocent defendant.
The Constitution did not make the courts impotent, ineffective figureheads. They are created by the Constitution for a proper function. They have a duty to perform in criminal cases, namely, to see that the guilty are punished and the innocent freed in accordance with the law. Courts have a duty in a criminal case to tell a jury in what cases under the law a defendant should be found guilty and in what cases they are innocent. The jury should be informed as to its duty. When instructions are given as to duties, they necessarily have to be in mandatory form or in the grammatical style of the instruction in this case. Beavers v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 549, 141 N.E.2d 118.
For these reasons I cannot concur in the majority opinion, since it makes courts impotent in attempting to keep the actions of a jury within the bounds of the law and constitution. The duty of the court is to protect the innocent from the arbitrary and inflamed actions of a jury, as well as the *579 guilty, by instructing it when, under the law, it has a duty to acquit and when it has a duty to find the defendant guilty.
NOTE.  Reported in 230 N.E.2d 416.