Opinion ID: 1980089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jury communications

Text: Plaintiffs next argue that communications with the jury during its deliberations by the bailiff and trial court, without notice to and outside the presence of counsel, constituted prejudicial error. According to the affidavits submitted to the trial court, [12] a bailiff denied the foreman's request for a dictionary because it was not in evidence. The bailiff informed the foreman that if they had a request they should write it out in a note and [he] would give the note to the judge, who would have to call all the attorneys together before providing any additional information. The foreman then said to `forget about it.' The bailiff transmitted the jury's request to the judge in an unrecorded conversation. At the end of the day's deliberations, the judge gave a supplemental jury instruction: Do not use any extraneous evidence; in other words, do not avail yourselves of dictionaries or encyclopedias or anything that may be available to you at your home. This instruction was given in open court, but without notice to or the presence of counsel. We agree that the bailiff erred in informing the jurors that they could not receive a dictionary. Obviously a bailiff may communicate with the jury regarding administrative matters. But a bailiff's role does not include discussing any matters concerning the substantive law or the procedural rules, even if the bailiff has years of experience and believes he knows what the judge's answer will be to a particular question. See Section 28-14-18, N.D.C.C. Although the bailiff's comment to the jury that questions to the judge had to be put in writing was proper as an administrative function, his additional comments that he would give the note to the judge, who would have to call all the attorneys together before providing any additional informationwere beyond the scope of his administrative function and therefore in error. See, e.g., Demaray v. Ridl, 249 N.W.2d 219 (N.D.1976). Such comments unnecessarily dampen proper jury communication with the judge, as can be seen by the foreman's immediate response. According to Ferderer v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 75 N.D. 139, 26 N.W.2d 236 (1947), once a party shows affirmatively from the record that error in communicating ex parte with the jury was committed which might operate to his injury, the burden is shifted to the prevailing party to show that the error was not prejudicial. [13] In the instant case the lower court found that there was no error, and, in the alternative, that any error was harmless. We have already concluded that the ex parte communications resulted in error. But we agree with the lower court's determination that the errors were harmless. Plaintiffs contend that Cendak Agri-Service, Inc. v. Hausman, 275 N.W.2d 326 (N.D.1979), stands for the proposition that the harmless-error doctrine does not apply to the review of ex parte communications with the jury. This is incorrect. The court in Cendak determined that the error affected the substantial rights of the parties and therefore was not harmless. But a close reading of the case demonstrates that the court, in its form of analysis, applied the harmless-error standard. Thus the harmless-error doctrine applies in regard to ex parte communications with the jury. See also State v. Hatch, 346 N.W.2d 268 (N.D.1984) [harmless-error rule applied to ex parte communication with jury in criminal trial]. Each case must be decided upon its own facts in applying the harmless-error doctrine. Here, each of the two errors is harmless. The bailiff's refusal to provide the jury access to a dictionary is harmless because permitting the jury access to a dictionary during deliberations would have been error. See State v. Abell, 383 N.W.2d 810 (N.D.1986). And the bailiff's comments concerning the procedure to be followed subsequent to the submission of a note from the jury to the judge is harmless because the comments did not prevent the jury from submitting a question to the judge. The trial court had specifically instructed the jury as to the procedure to be employed in asking the court a question; the jury still had the opportunity to send a note and decided not to do so. [14] We emphasize, however, that although the bailiff's improper comments may have been factually correct, a bailiff never should provide advice as to any nonadministrative matter, such as occurred here. A bailiff should be strictly limited in his communications to the jury by express instructions from the trial judge. A bailiff's communications to the jury should entail merely ensuring that the physical needs and safety of the jury are attended to, asking if the jury has agreed upon a verdict or what the jury wants when summoned by the jury to the jury door, and informing the jury that its question or request must be put in writing. Any other communication, however slight, is error. Plaintiffs contend that had they been notified of the dictionary request, they would have been able to ask that the trial court question the jurors and find out why they wanted a dictionary; and once the court allowed the questioning of the jury, counsel and the court would have perceived the difficulty and alleviated it. The trial court, on the other hand, later ruled in its order denying a new trial that the jury could not have had a dictionary and that the court would not have allowed counsel to inquire as to the jury's reason for wanting a dictionary. Such actions are within the trial court's discretion. See, e.g., Haugen v. Mid-State Aviation, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 692 (N.D.1966). We therefore conclude that there was no error in the trial court's refusal to allow the jury access to a dictionary or in the trial judge's policy of not asking the jurors why they wanted a dictionary. The trial court's supplemental instruction admonishing the jury to not use any extraneous information such as a dictionary was merely a reiteration of previous jury instructions limiting the deliberations to the evidence. In addition, the instruction was merely administrative in nature in that it served as a reminder to the jurors, at the close of the day, to not expose themselves to extraneous information. The instruction, even without notice to the parties, was proper, although generally notice should be provided to the parties as a courtesy whenever supplemental instructions are given. See, for example, Cendak, supra, and State v. Klein, 200 N.W.2d 288 (N.D.1972), describing the proper method to be employed by the court when the jury has a question Plaintiffs' final argument as to this issue is that the ex parte communications with the jury violated their Federal due-process rights. [15] According to the plaintiffs, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the court to provide counsel and the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard at all stages of the trial, including any instance of communication with the jury during deliberation or any submission of supplemental instructions to the jury. We recognize the general rule that communication with the jury during deliberation requires notice to counsel and an opportunity to object to the proposed response. See Section 28-14-19, N.D.C.C.; Cendak, supra . But the rule cannot be taken to absurd lengths, such as where the violation of the rule does not reach constitutional dimensions or in instances where the rule is not intended to apply. As mentioned above, several of the ex parte communications were improper. But the error produced by these communications was harmless and therefore does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Nor do we perceive constitutional error in the ex parte communications involving administrative concerns, such as the bailiff's statement that questions must be in writing, or the court's reiteration, by its supplemental instruction, that the verdict must be based strictly upon the evidence of the case and the rules of law as given to the jury through the instructions. We therefore conclude that the ex parte communications with the jury did not violate plaintiffs' Federal due-process rights.