Opinion ID: 2653485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: “Asportation”

Text: During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking for a dictionary or a definition for the word “asportation,” appearing in Final Instruction No. 7. Over Inman’s objection, the trial court sent the jury a note stating “you may not have a dictionary. Black’s Law Dictionary defines asportation as: [t]he removal of one things [sic] from one place to another, the carrying away of goods.” (Tr. at 931.) As a basis for its decision to provide the jury with the definition, the trial court referred to Ind. Jury Rule 28, which states: If the jury advises the court that it has reached an impasse in its deliberations, the court may, but only in the presence of counsel, and, in a criminal case the parties, inquire of the jurors to determine whether and how the court and counsel can assist them in their deliberative process. After receiving the jurors’ response, if any, the court, after consultation with counsel, may direct that further proceedings occur as appropriate. We review a trial court’s manner of instructing the jury for an abuse of discretion. Cline v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1249, 1256 (Ind. 2000). Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6 (2008) provides that, after the jury retires for deliberation, 15 [i]f . . . the jury desires to be informed as to any point of law arising in the case[,] the jury may request the officer to conduct them into court, where the information required shall be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the parties or the attorneys representing the parties. (emphasis added). Furthermore, we determined in Tincher v. Davidson that “Indiana Jury Rule 28 urges that trial judges facilitate and assist jurors in the deliberative process, in order to avoid mistrials.” 762 N.E.2d 1221, 1224 (Ind. 2002). “Under appropriate circumstances, and with advance consultation with the parties and an opportunity to voice objections, a trial court . . . may directly answer the jury’s question (either with or without directing the jury to reread the other instructions).” Id. Under Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6, the trial court was obligated to respond to the jury’s inquiry into the definition of “asportation,” a point of law. 8 And that is exactly what the trial court did. Although in its discussion with counsel the trial court referred to Ind. Jury Rule 28, which is triggered only where the jury has reached an impasse, and though such reference was inaccurate, in this case its actions were completely correct under Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6. 9 Even if the trial court’s provision of a definition was not mandated by Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6, the trial court had the discretion to respond to the jury’s question. Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998). 8 In Krempetz, asportation is defined as “the carrying away of the property.” 872 N.E.2d at 610. 9 Importantly, Ind. Jury Rule 28 is predicated on the jury reaching an impasse. Should the jury reach an impasse, then the trial court may assist the jurors in their deliberation. An impasse is not necessary for Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6 to apply. This section is triggered when the jury, after retiring for deliberation, requests to be informed of a point of law. Then the trial court must provide the needed information. However, if the jury requests information and neither Ind. Jury Rule 28 nor Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6 is applicable, “the trial court nevertheless has discretion to provide the requested information. . . . The trial court, however, must exercise its discretion extremely cautiously, consistent with Indiana Code Section 35-37-2-2 and case law in this area.” Foster v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1166, 1170 (Ind. 1998). 16 Not only was the result of the trial court’s actions correct under Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6, but Inman himself cannot explain how he was possibly harmed by the trial court’s response to the jury’s inquiry. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing the jury with a definition of “asportation.”