Title: Deming v. State

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

235 Ind. 282 (1956)
133 N.E.2d 51
DEMING
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 29,321.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed March 28, 1956.
*283 Leroy Baker, of Bloomington, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General and Owen S. Boling, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
ACHOR, J.
The appellant was charged by indictment with murder in the first degree. Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned its verdict, finding appellant guilty of second degree murder, upon which sentence was announced.
*284 The facts complained of are essentially as follows: After the jury had retired and was deliberating upon its verdict, one of the jurors called the court bailiff, who opened the door of the jury room and one of the jurors asked the bailiff to inquire of the judge what would be the possibilities of the appellant being paroled if found guilty of murder in the second degree. The bailiff left the jury room and later returned and orally reported that the judge said that it would be entirely up to the institution, whereupon varying opinions on that subject were expressed by one or more of the jurors and the bailiff, after which the bailiff closed the jury room door and left. From 30 to 45 minutes later the jury returned its verdict.
Appellant assigned these "irregularities in the proceedings of the jury" as cause for new trial. Admittedly, the general rule upon this subject is as follows:
It is appellee's contention first, that the error was of such a nature that no prejudice resulted, and that therefore it was within the above rule that "the violation will not vitiate the verdict."
Secondly, appellee asserts that the communication, if error, was of only such technical nature that by statutory *285 directive this court may not reverse the decision because of such error from which "no prejudice results." The statute relied upon is as follows:
Appellee cites numerous cases independent of and in support of this statute, in which this court has held that judgments fairly entered will not be reversed because of "technical errors or defects." Rickard v. The State (1881), 74 Ind. 275; Shular v. State (1903), 160 Ind. 300, 66 N.E. 746; McClanahan v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 365, 118 N.E.2d 434. See also 41 A.L.R.2d 227. We concur in the principle of law upon which those cases are based. However, we do not concur in the application of the principle which appellee here urges. The information here conveyed from the court regarding the possibility of parole was not a mere "technical error or defect" within the meaning of § 9-2320, supra. Neither can we say, as a matter of law, that no prejudice resulted from the communication.
The information regarding the possibility of parole conveyed by the court to the jury via the bailiff, was in the nature of an instruction. It dealt with the consequences,  the punishment,  to which the law subjected the accused by reason of the crime charged. Therefore, it was a part of the trial.
The rights of the appellant with regard to the issue here presented have their origin in the Constitution *286 of the State of Indiana, in the statutes of the state and in numerous decisions of our courts. The pertinent constitutional provision is Art. 1, § 12 of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides in part as follows: "All courts shall be open; and every man, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law...."
The Legislature has implemented the above constitutional guarantee by the enactment of the following statute:
Pursuant to the above constitutional and statutory provisions and the basic concepts of our common law jurisprudence, our courts in numerous decisions have established and followed the rule that all communications from the judge to the jury pertaining to the substantive rights of the defendant and not merely with the physical requirements of the jury, must be made in open court, in the presence, or within the knowledge of the accused and his counsel so that the accused may not be deprived of his right to except thereto, or to ask for additional instructions by reason of additional matters considered. Hogg v. State (1856), 7 Ind. 551; Fish v. Smith (1859), 12 Ind. 563; Roberts v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 340, 12 N.E. 500; Quinn v. The State (1892), 130 Ind. 340, 30 N.E. 300; Danes et al. v. Pearson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 465, 33 N.E. 976; Coolman v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 503, 72 N.E. 568; Fina v. United States (1931), 46 F.2d 643; Miles v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 312, 53 N.E.2d 779. See also Dean v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 568, 130 N.E.2d 126.
*287 This court has consistently followed the precedent established in the early cases of Hogg v. State, supra and Hall v. State (1856), 8 Ind. 439. Upon this issue this court has held in the case of Bryant v. State (1933), 205 Ind. 372, 186 N.E. 322, that an instruction discussing the court's right to suspend sentence, stating that the jury might safely trust to the court the right performance of the duty and responsibility imposed on the court with respect thereto, was objectionable.
Furthermore, we have held that, when facts constituting misconduct and irregularities in the jury's deliberations are shown sufficient to raise a question of doubt as to the fairness and impartiality in the deliberations as to the verdict, prejudice may be conclusively presumed. Coolman v. State, supra, (163 Ind. 503, 72 N.E. 568).
For a very able discussion of the question before us, we quote from the case of Coward v. Commonwealth (1935), 164 Va. 639, 641, 646, 178 S.E. 787, 798, 799-800, as follows:
After analyzing the decisions of the various states the court concluded its opinion as follows:
In the present case the information communicated by the judge to the jury was related to the substantive rights of the accused. It was not made in open court in the presence of the accused. It raised a doubt as to the fairness and impartiality in the deliberations of the jury, therefore "prejudice may be conclusively presumed." Coolman v. State, 163 Ind. 503, supra. Also, it constituted reversible error for the reason that the communication was not made in open court, in the presence of the accused.
When confronted with the circumstances here presented, if, in the opinion of the judge the question merited an answer, the jury should have been called back to the court room and instructed in open court in the presence of the defendant that it was the duty of *289 the jury to find the defendant either guilty or not guilty of the offense charged, and that in deciding this question the possibility of parole was not an issue for the jury to decide.
Judgment is therefore reversed with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for new trial.
NOTE.  Reported in 133 N.E.2d 51.