Title: Purdy v. State
Citation: 369 N.E.2d 633
Docket Number: 377S224
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 1977

369 N.E.2d 633 (1977)
Daniel C. PURDY and James A. Purdy, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 377S224.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
December 1, 1977.
Rehearing Denied February 9, 1978.
Harry Dudley Miller, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Charles D. Rodgers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Appellants Daniel and James Purdy were both found by a jury in Marion Criminal Court to be guilty of first-degree murder. They were sentenced to life imprisonment on December 22, 1976.
Among the issues submitted for us for review is the allegation that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to read both the preliminary instructions and the final instructions to the jury as requested by appellants. We hold that the trial court committed reversible error in this regard, and therefore will not discuss the other issues raised.
After the jury was sworn, the court indicated to the parties that he intended to waive the reading of the court's preliminary instructions to the jury. He stated that he intended to send these instructions to the jury room during deliberations. There was an objection to this procedure and a request that the preliminary instructions be read to the jury before the deliberations, but this motion was overruled. After final arguments of counsel, the court refused to read the final instructions to the jury, over objections of appellants. Instead, he sent both the preliminary and final instructions to the jury room with the jury, stating to them and instructing them that the foreman of the jury was to read and discuss each instruction with them. The court further instructed the jury that if they had any questions about the instructions, they were to report it to the court, and the court would discuss it and explain it to them.
The trial court's duty to give both preliminary and final instructions is set out in Ind. R. Tr. P. 51. As to preliminary instructions, § A of the rule provides as follows:
As to final instructions, § B of rule 51 states:
Further, the Indiana legislature has directed trial courts in their order of proceedings in criminal cases in Ind. Code § 35-1-35-1 (Burns 1975). Final instructions to the jury are made after final arguments, as discussed in the fifth section of this statute:
The question presented is what discretion the trial judge has, in regard to his communication with and management of the jury, in the above procedures. This has been a recurring question in a long line of cases, all of which have reaffirmed the same basic law and principle.
Early in the history of Indiana law, the Supreme Court stated in Hall v. State, (1856) 8 Ind. 439, at 443-44:
In Smith v. McMillen, (1862) 19 Ind. 391, the principles of jury instruction discussed in Hall were cogently restated. In holding that it was error for the trial court to send written instructions to the jury room without the consent of the parties, and that the jury should receive their charge and all subsequent instructions or explanations touching their duties in open court in the presence of the parties, the Supreme Court stated:
The same established principles, concerning the role and duty of a judge, were followed in other cases involving jury instructions and verdicts. It was held that the clerk of the court cannot by agreement of the parties in absence of the judge, preside at the return of the verdict and during the polling of the jury, receive the verdict, and discharge the jury. Willett v. Porter, (1873) 42 Ind. 250. And when a jury, after retirement for deliberation, has a question regarding an interrogatory sent to them, instructions by the judge in answer to said question should be given by calling the jury into open court, and not by written communication sent to the jury room. Low v. Freeman, (1888) 117 Ind. 341, 20 N.E. 242. Finally, the Supreme Court in the case of Quinn v. State, (1891) 130 Ind. 340, 30 N.E. 300, reversed a conviction where the trial judge directed the bailiff to go into the jury room and give jury instructions as to the return of the verdict, and also directed that the verdict should be received by an attorney of the court who had not been appointed as a special judge.
Thus, the settled Indiana law has been, since its inception, that the communication with and management of the jury, particularly with reference to instructions to the jury, are to be done by the judge in open court. The problem in the present cause partially arose in three recent cases in Indiana, all three of them from the same trial court, two of them involving the same trial judge and the third involving a special judge acting in this court. It appears that a misinterpretation of the opinions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in those three cases caused the problem to arise in its present form in this cause.
The first of the three recent cases was M artin v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 490, 296 N.E.2d 793, wherein the trial judge followed the established procedure of reading the instructions to the jury in open court. He then refused defendant's motion to permit the jury to take the written instructions with them to the jury room during deliberations. In regard to that issue, the Supreme Court stated, 260 Ind. at 495-96, 296 N.E.2d at 797:
In Snelling v. State, (1975) Ind. App., 325 N.E.2d 227, the trial court read the instructions to the jury in open court and, over objection of defense counsel, sent the instructions into the jury room during deliberations. The Court of Appeals, Third District, *636 stated that the sending of the written instructions to the jury room was clearly not in accord with Indiana law. Reviewing the above language from the Martin case, however, the Court of Appeals held that this action standing alone was not enough to reverse the conviction, stating at 325 N.E.2d at 228-29:
Again, in Snelling v. State, (1975) Ind. App., 337 N.E.2d 829, the same issue was faced again when the same trial court, again over objection of the defendant, read the instructions to the jury in open court and then sent the written instructions into the jury room during deliberations. The Court of Appeals, Second District, found that though this was contrary to Indiana law, and that a legislative enactment or court rule would be needed if it were to be required of trial courts that they send written copies of instructions to the jury room during deliberations, it was harmless error in this case and would not merit reversal. The court then stated, at 337 N.E.2d at 836:
Thus, neither the Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court in the three cases above changed the law in regard to sending written instructions into the jury room. Rather, they found it was the law that this was not to be done, but found it to be harmless error in the cases presented. In this case, the trial court went further and not only sent the instructions into the jury room, but also failed to instruct the jury either preliminarily or finally in open court. This duty was delegated to the foreman of the jury under circumstances where it cannot be known how the job was done, or whether it was done at all. This was not only in violation of the settled law in Indiana as set out above, but it was also directly in violation of Ind. R. Tr. P. 51(A), (B) and Ind. Code § 35-1-35-1 (Burns 1975).
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and a new trial ordered.
All Justices concur.