Opinion ID: 2595498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: request for read-back

Text: Jorrick argues that the trial court erred when it refused the jury's request for a complete read-back of his testimony. K.S.A. 22-3420(3) sets forth: 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 the law shall be given, or the evidence shall be read or exhibited to them . . . . Recently, in State v. Juiliano, 268 Kan. 89, Syl. ¶ 1, 991 P.2d 408 (1999), we discussed the standard of review for the read-back of testimony and stated: The means by which a trial court complies with a jury's request to have testimony read back is subject to its discretion. The trial court has the discretion to control the content of the read-back. The trial court is free to clarify the jury's read-back request where the read-back is unclear or too broad, or the read-back would jeopardize the manageability of the trial. Discretion rests with the trial court to clarify and focus the jury's inquiry. During deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note requesting a read-back of Jorrick's testimony. Jorrick's testimony spans 95 pages of the record on appeal, but no transcript was available at the time of the jury's request. The judge informed the jury that there was no transcript and that it would be tiring for the court reporter to translate her notes and read them back to the jury. The judge asked the jury to go back into deliberations and to see if they could decide on a portion of the transcript that they were interested in. The jury subsequently returned a note to the judge that stated: After further consideration, we no longer need Michael Jorrick's testimony. Recently, in State v. Miller, 268 Kan. 517, 997 P.2d 90 (2000), we stated: A trial court may not ignore a jury's request submitted pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3420(3) but must respond in some meaningful manner or seek additional clarification or limitation of the request. It is only when the trial court makes no attempt to provide a meaningful response to an appropriate request or gives an erroneous response that the mandatory requirement of K.S.A. 22-3420(3) is breached. 268 Kan. 517, Syl. ¶ 7. The trial court has the discretion to clarify and focus the jury's inquiry when the jury has requested a read-back of testimony. 268 Kan. 517, Syl. ¶ 8. It would have been difficult and time consuming for the court reporter to read back all of her notes, which eventually covered 95 pages of the record on appeal. The court did not err in requesting the jury to specify which part of the testimony that it wanted to have read back. The court responded to the jury's request in a meaningful manner. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it attempted to narrow the read-back of Jorrick's testimony by asking the jury to specifically set forth which portion of the testimony that it requested read back.