Opinion ID: 1802323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: alleged error patent on the face of the record

Text: Defendant also asserts, patent on the face of the record, there exists reversible error in that the polling of the jury reflects four answers of no to the question, Is this your [guilty] verdict? There is no merit to this contention. First, the transcript indicates that, after the jury was polled, the court remarked: Nine to three. Three no's. Is that correct? All right .... No objection was made by defendant. Immediately thereafter, the court ordered defendant to step forward and stated: Mr. Leak, you heard the verdict of the jury by vote of nine to three, found that you were guilty of the offense of armed robbery. Defendant was then remanded to the custody of the sheriff. Again, there was no objection by defendant. However, the transcript also shows that many of the questions posed to the jurors were unanswered. The state moved to amend the transcript, alleging that the court reporter had failed to hear the answers when listening to the audiograph recording of the evidence. This court granted the motion. The corrected version, taken from the reporter's penciled notes, indicates that only the jurors in seats 1, 6, and 11 did not vote for the guilty verdict returned by the jury. Since nine votes are sufficient to convict a defendant of armed robbery, [1] the conviction was lawfully obtained. In any event, we note that article 920(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits consideration on appeal only of any error that is discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. Clearly, since it requires a review of the evidence to determine whether there has been an error in the polling of the jurors, the alleged error is not discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings under the terms of article 920. Furthermore, examination of the jury's verdict as recorded in the minutes of court, which are a part of the pleadings and proceedings, reveals no discrepancy or error. Hence, the alleged error in the jury polling found in the transcript is not reviewable by this court. For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. DIXON, J., concurs.