Opinion ID: 1201386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: inquiry from the jury

Text: During deliberations, the jurors sent a note to the judge stating: Is it kidnapping after [the victim] is removed from truck at crime scene? After conferring with counsel, the judge responded: Whether the defendant committed any one of the crimes with which he is charged is for you to decide applying the law in the instructions to the facts as you determine them from the testimony and exhibits. Henry's objection at trial to this response was that he wanted the judge to add, only if you find that he did it as opposed to Vern Foote doing it. The trial court properly replied to the jury's question. It was neither appropriate nor necessary to say more under these circumstances. Henry did not challenge the substance of the kidnapping instruction at trial. His present contention, that the trial judge should have answered the inquiry by stating that the defendant must be acquitted if they believed (1) that the kidnapping began when the victim was dragged from his truck, and (2) that [Henry] neither committed that act nor was an accomplice to it, is unsupported by authority and without merit. We also note that such a comment might well have violated the prohibition found in Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 27. See Charles E. Davis, Comment, Judge's Inability To Comment On The Evidence In Arizona, 1973 Ariz.St.L.J. 119, 127 (a decision by the court to recognize only the facts of one party, while ignoring those of another, violates the no comment rule ). We find no error here.