Opinion ID: 2452008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: handling of jury question

Text: Defendant argues that the district judge erred both procedurally and substantively in responding to the jury's question during deliberations. Procedurally, the judge should not have provided a written response that summarized a portion of a witness's testimony; rather, he should simply have offered a readback of the testimony. Substantively, Adams argues, the judge's summary was inaccurate. The standard of review for a trial court's response to a jury question during deliberations is abuse of discretion. State v. Hoge, 276 Kan. 801, 815-16, 80 P.3d 52 (2003) (citing State v. Moore, 274 Kan. 639, 643, 55 P.3d 903 [2002]). The State points out, however, that Adams invited this error by acquiescing in the trial court's handling of the question. If so, the question is not reviewable. See State v. Prouse, 244 Kan. 292, 298-99, 767 P.2d 1308 (1989). The invited error doctrine has been applied in reviewing a district judge's compliance with the statutory procedures governing jury questions. State v. Bruce, 255 Kan. 388, 397, 874 P.2d 1165 (1994); State v. Cramer, 17 Kan.App.2d 623, 632-33, 841 P.2d 1111 (1992). K.S.A. 22-3420(3) provides: After the jury has retired for deliberation, if they desire to be informed as to any part of the law or evidence arising in the case, they may request the officer to conduct them to the court, where the information on the point of law shall be given, or the evidence shall be read or exhibited to them in the presence of the defendant, unless he voluntarily absents himself, and his counsel and after notice to the prosecuting attorney. The court has construed this provision to require the defendant's presence for any discussions about a jury's questions and [w]here the record does not affirmatively reflect the presence of the defendant, this court will presume that the defendant's constitutional right to be present was violated and the K.S.A. 22-3420(3) was not followed. State v. Betts, 272 Kan. 369, 391, 33 P.3d 575 (2001) (citing State v. Bell, 266 Kan. 896, 920, 975 P.2d 239 [1999]). This Betts court has further noted that invited error doctrine would not apply to an allegation that defendant's right to be present during jury question discussions was violated, because this is a right personal to the defendant. Betts, 272 Kan. at 392, 33 P.3d 575; see State v. Bolton, 274 Kan. 1, 5, 49 P.3d 468 (2002). But harmless error analysis does apply, 272 Kan. at 391-92, 33 P.3d 575. In this case, Adams does not argue that her right to be present was violated. This is wise; because, although the record is less than crystal clear, it is not silent. The prosecutor's comments on the record show that she participated at least in a discussion of the jury's question and the response with her counsel. This makes her situation analogous to that of the defendants in State v. Bruce and State v. Cramer . In Bruce, this court applied the invited error doctrine to the defendant's objection on appeal to the court's response to a jury question. 255 Kan. at 397, 874 P.2d 1165. The record indicated that the defense counsel agreed to the response that the court, with input from the prosecution and defense, formulated in open court. Because the defendant participated and, in fact, joined in the request for specific language, defendant could not argue for error before this court. Bruce, 255 Kan. at 397, 874 P.2d 1165. Similarly, in State v. Cramer the Kansas Court of Appeals applied the invited error doctrine to a defendant's argument that the district court improperly responded to a jury's question. 17 Kan.App.2d at 631-32, 841 P.2d 1111. Defense counsel stated on the record that he had no problem with setting out the standard suggested by the prosecutor. It was just that standard that both parties agreed to that the court used to answer the question. Because of the defendant's on-the-record agreement to the answer, he could not argue the error on appeal. 17 Kan.App.2d at 632-33, 841 P.2d 1111 (citing State v. Salton, 238 Kan. 835, 837, 715 P.2d 412 [1986]; State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 682, 703 P.2d 1362 [1985]; State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532, 535-36, 639 P.2d 461 [1982]). It would be better practice, in future cases, for the district judge to take special care to deal with jury questions only in open court and to ensure a recording of the presence of the defendants as well as the prosecutor and defense counsel. In addition, a judge who summarizes testimony rather than merely offer a readback, plays with fire. See Betts, 272 Kan. at 393, 33 P.3d 575 (error to summarize but harmless). However, on the record in this case, we are satisfied that Adams invited any error that may have occurred in the district judge's handling of the jury's question. We therefore decline to review her procedural and substantive complaints.