Document: 466 U.S. 341 104 S.Ct. 1830 80 L.Ed.2d 346 Michael P. JAMES, Petitioner,v.KENTUCKY. No. 82-6840. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 28, 1984. Decided April 18, Rehearing Denied June 25, Syllabus In petitioner's criminal trial in a Kentucky state court, judge overruled defense counsel's request that "an admonition be given to jury no emphasis defendant's failure testify." Petitioner was convicted, and on appeal he argued judge's refusal charge as requested violated Carter v. Kentucky, 450 288, 101 1112, 67 241, which held that, order fully effectuate right remain silent, must, if do so, instruct not draw an adverse inference from testify. Conceding requires judge, upon request, give appropriate instruction, court properly denied because there "vast difference" under law between "admonition" "instruction," petitioner, who would have been entitled had only "admonition." Held: 1. circumstances this case, respect constitutional rights is supported by independent adequate ground. Pp. 344-351. (a) generally distinguishes "instructions" tend statements black-letter setting forth legal rules governing outcome case—and "admonitions" cautionary regarding jury's conduct, such requiring disregard certain testimony. However, substantive distinction admonitions instructions always clear or closely hewn to, their content can overlap. Nor strict adherence practice giving orally while writing well. 345-348. (b) For federal purposes, petitioner adequately invoked his guidance, Kentucky's sort firmly established regularly followed prevent implementation rights. To insist particular label for statement required "force resort arid ritual meaningless form," Staub City Baxley, 355 313, 320, 78 277, 281, 2 302, further perceivable interest. 348-349. (c) This asserted State, defendant attempting circumvent, matter deliberate strategy, firm procedural rule writing. The record reveals little support State's view single passing reference being far too slender reed rest conclusion insisted oral nothing else. Where it inescapable sought invoke substance right, state-law defect form must more evident here. 349-351. 2. Evaluation contention any error here harmless best made before Court. 351-352. 647 S.W.2d 794 (Ky.1983) reversed remanded. C. Thomas Hectus, Frankfort, Ky., petitioner. Penny R. Warren, respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 241 (1981), we take stand. found relieved obligation counsel rather than "instruction." * James indicted receipt stolen property, burglary, rape.1 convicted two prior felonies—forgery murder—and prosecution warned were stand use forgery conviction impeach During voir dire, asked prospective jurors how they feel After brief exchange one member venire, interrupted, stating: "They just said try case solely evidence. That excludes other consideration." App. 30.2 With dire came close. did testify at trial. 3 At close testimony, off-the-record discussion about instructions. When returned record, James' lawyer noted objected several given, "requests overruled." Id., 95.3 then instructed jury, verdict guilty all counts. subsequent persistent felony offender proceeding, sentenced life imprisonment light previous convictions. 4 On appeal, tell supra. conceded inference. 794, 795 (Ky.1983). noted, however, law. He "was but ask it. admonition." 795-796. We granted certiorari, 464 913, 273, 254 (1983), determine whether default supports result below. now reverse. II 5 so. argues essence holding afford some guidance "functional equivalent" instruction Carter. State responds provide when should instruction. An examination background necessary understand these arguments. A. 6 "admonitions." former law, latter conduct. See Webster Commonwealth, 508 33, 36 (Ky.App.), cert. denied, 419 1070, 95 657, 42 666 (1974); Miller Noell, 193 Ky. 659, 237 S.W. 373 (App.1922). Thus, include Perry 652 655, 662 (Ky.1983); Stallings 556 4, (Ky.1977), consider evidence purposes evaluating credibility only, Harris 669, 670 (Ky.1977); Lynch 472 263, 266 (Ky.App.1971), codefendant Ware 537 174, 177 (Ky.1976). Rules Criminal Procedure each adjournment "admonished" discuss case. Ky.Rule Crim.Proc. 9.70 ("Admonition"). J. Palmore & Lawson, Instructions Juries 16-20, 397-404 (1975) (hereinafter Palmore). 7 Instructions, hand, set They "state what believe . return favor party bears burden proof." supra, 36. reads end trial, provides written copy. 9.54(1). Carter, amended its so requests, compelled shall election to. Rule 9.54(3).4 8 highest has recognized number cases, example, referred court's either admonish point, indicating possibility. E.g., Caldwell 503 485, 493-494 (1972) ("instructions" contain "admonition," "failure instruct" harmless); Reeves 462 926, 930, 404 836, 92 124, 30 69 (1971). also Bennett Horton, 592 460, (1979) included could make setoff against award); Carson 382 85, (1964) ("The fourth usual reasonable doubt admonition"). acknowledged "sometimes matters appropriately subject are with part instructions." 9 pre-Carter cases told inference, distinguish See, e.g., Luttrell 554 75, 79-80 (1977) ("instruction"); Scott 495 800, 802 ("written admonition," "admonition"), 414 1073, 94 587, 38 479 (1973); Green 488 339, Dixon 478 719 ("an admonishing jury"); Jones 457 627, 630 (1970) ("admonition" during another witness' testimony), 401 946, 91 964, 28 229 (1971); Roberson 274 49, 50, 118 157, 157-158 (1938) ("admonition"), citing Hanks 248 203, 205, 58 394, 395 (App.1933) ("instruction"). A seem fall neatly into category category. Cautioning considering testimony differs cautioning was.5 treat n. 10 One difference normally oral, latter, though orally, provided Palmore, ch. 12. strictly adhered As cited above indicate, frequently appear id., 21 ("An 'admonition' need instruction"); 17. Conversely, may waives requirement. Brief Respondent 25; Tr. Oral Arg. 31, 38-39. contends, without authority, reversible "instruction" orally. Yet Appeals held, where after reading instructions, unanimous, considered Freeman 425 575, 579 (1968). And gave explanations Allee 454 336, 342 (Ky.1970), dism'd sub nom. 950, 1186, 234 Ingram 427 815, 817 (Ky.1968). Finally, contemporaneous-objection rule, see, 36; 930; 9.54(2), odd request. Weichhand Garlinger, 447 606, 610 (Ky.App.1969) (harmless appropriate). B 11 There dispute guidance. Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 422, 85 1074, 1078, 13 934 (1965). question fatal below us claim. described above, hold not. Cf. Barr Columbia, 378 146, 149, 84 1734, 1736, 12 766 (1964). holds impermissible 302 (1958), interest, Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 448-449, 564, 567-568, 408 NAACP Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 293-302, 1302, 1306-1311, 325 "Admonition" term both we6 used context normal usage. Holmes wrote 60 years ago: "Whatever springs those endeavoring assert confers, assertion rights, plainly reasonably made, defeated name local practice." Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 24, 44 13, 14, 68 L.Ed. 143 (1923). C magic word, however. It considers strategy. put "less subject, read over over, commented passed by." 39-40. James, represented third attorney, seems concede first attorney seek admonition. does argue instructions,7 suggests done happy statement. 23-25. readily agree free require writing;8 categorize no-adverse-inference Constitution obliges effective manner, requests; dictate, inconsistent practice, told. Taylor 436 478, 485-486, 98 1930, 1934-1935, 56 468 (1978). Lakeside Oregon, 435 333, 1091, 55 319 (1978), objection. Given surely only. reasons similar out Lakeside, think impermissibly infringe alerted it, Cupp Naughten, 141, 396, 400, 368 (1973). 14 circumvent rule. thing, Part II-A, indicates, oral/written solid believe. Admonitions itself referring "admonish." addition, our own admittedly incomplete record9 but. 15 Apart term, absolutely indicate insistence. Indeed, indications contrary. Before going off stated "a regards Hearing (Jan. 19, 1982), p. (emphasis added). Returning "object[ed] jury" admonition" overruled. inferred apart shift objection ("the given"), ("requests overruled"). possible 16 cannot find respected rests grounds. III 17 even error, harmless. same argument below, reach committed. determined harmless, see U.S., 304, S.Ct., 1121, now. Even evaluation harmlessness called for, remanded proceedings opinion. 18 Reversed 19 MARSHALL took decision 20 REHNQUIST dissents dissenting 307-310, 1122-1124, (1981). charges grew three separate incidents, involving Donna Richardson. Richardson testified 23, 1980, her house broken gun taken pillows. week later, she home pane glass removed back door, locks undone, pillows messed up. May 6, next-door neighbor, telephone call doctor. let him began dialing, side, tied up, brought house, raped her. pistol possession arrested, hence receiving property. His fingerprint missing glass, burglary. rejected logic regard themselves (1981): "Kentucky knew inferences silent guilt 'from alone,' Commonwealth's unpersuasive. Jurors lawyers; know technical meaning 'evidence.' expected notice testify, and, limiting speculate incriminating silence." 303-304, 1120-1121. relevant portion transcript reads, entirety, follows: "JUDGE MEIGS: Call your witness. You closed, I am sorry. "MR. PEALE: [defense counsel]: closed [sic] "OFF THE RECORD. Note objects jury. Overruled. requests Ladies gentlemen ." pp. 3-4. provides: "The unless him, event effect allow prejudice way." substantively indistinguishable very persistent-felony-offender hearing, handcuffs. requesting mistrial, asked: "Can least Honor?" obliged, telling "admonished fact courtroom shackled handcuffed. do, bearing all, case." 4. Bruno States, 308 287, 294, 198, 200, 257 (1939) (Court unwilling assume "that jurors, admonished, neither nor heed court" improper inference). "basic [is] client something almost like answered admonition, least." 25. Whether clear. 348. Neither lawyers involved appeal. appellate working unelaborated us.

Category: 0