Opinion ID: 1897927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the bailiff's presence in the jury room during the trial was highly prejudicial.

Text: The appellant argues that bailiff James Gales, a former alderman under the Evers administration, was present in the jury room with the jurors and out of the presence of other court officials on several occasions during the trial proceedings, which resulted in prejudice to appellant Middleton. When appellant became aware of such fact, he moved for a mistrial. Prior to ruling on the motion, the court granted appellant the opportunity to examine both court bailiffs, James Gales and Mary Chamberlain. Appellant called and questioned only Chamberlain. The examination follows: Q. While you were seated outside of the jury room moments ago, Mr. Gales was inside the jury room with the door closed; isn't that correct? A. That's right, that's correct.       Q. My question is that he has, Mr. James Gales, that is, has been in the jury room with the jury behind closed doors several times during this trial; isn't that correct? A. That's correct.       MR. RILEY: Q. Mrs. Chamberlain, do you know why he went in there, why he went in the room? A. Yes sir, I do. Q. Why? A. He went in there to watch those boxes so wouldn't nobody interfere with them. The appellant relies solely upon Lee v. State, 226 Miss. 276, 83 So.2d 818 (1955), where a material witness for the State, the sheriff, served as jury bailiff assisted by two of his deputies who also were State witnesses. There was no proof that the sheriff or his deputies attempted to influence the jury, but the appearance of unfairness was determined to exist. This Court stated that there [was] no reason why a material witness should serve as jury bailiff and the use of state witnesses as such was reversible error. Lee, supra, 83 So.2d at 821. However, Lee is distinguishable from the case sub judice. Gales' sole function at the trial was as an officer of the court. Further, this Court has established that the rule announced in Lee, supra, applies less strictly in civil cases. In Atwood v. Lever, 274 So.2d 146 (Miss. 1973), the Court stated that: A mistrial or a new trial should not be granted on this ground in a civil case, unless the circumstances indicate some prejudice, wrongful intent, or unfairness. [Emphasis added] 274 So.2d at 147. In Leflore v. State, 439 So.2d 675 (Miss. 1983), the Court stated: No harm of any kind resulted, except the embarrassment the bailiff caused the Court. Defense counsel never attempted to show that any kind of impropriety occurred in the jury room. Had there been any, evidence of it was clearly available, from the bailiff and members of the jury. See: Johnson v. State, 106 Miss. 94, 63 So. 338 (1913). 439 So.2d at 678. In denying the motion for mistrial, the judge said: The court's belief that with fourteen jurors in that jury room ... any misbehavior by Mr. Gales in that jury room would be reported to this court. With fourteen people sitting there observing him while he was in that room and as an officer of the court, the court has faith in Mr. Gales to carry out his obligations honestly and sincerely. The third assignment is rejected.