Opinion ID: 1436943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Conviction Affirmed in Absence of Exceptions to Instructions.

Text: For all of these reasons, we hold that defendant has not sustained his contention on this appeal that his constitutional rights to a fair trial and to due process of law were violated by the supplemental instructions in this case. If we felt otherwise, we might well reverse and remand this case for new trial despite the fact that defendant did not take exceptions to either of the supplemental instructions as given by the court in this case, but raised the constitutional question for the first time on this appeal. We also hold that in the absence of constitutional error defendant's conviction in this case must be affirmed, even though it was improper to give such instructions, because of the absence of exceptions to the giving of such instructions. [45] This court has held repeatedly, in criminal as well as in civil cases, that judgments will not be reversed for errors in instructions where no proper exceptions were taken to such instructions unless, upon examination of the entire record, the court can say that the error is manifest and that the ends of justice will not otherwise be satisfied. [46] In this case, while we do not approve of the supplemental instructions as given by the court, and expressly disapprove of them, we have examined the entire record and cannot say that any error in the giving of such instructions was manifest, in view of the many decisions by other courts, including previous decisions by this court, approving the giving of even stronger supplemental instructions. [47] Neither can we say, upon examination of the entire record in this case that unless this conviction is reversed the ends of justice will not be served, as also required under the foregoing rule before considering error to which no exception was taken in the trial court. In this case, at least when the first supplemental instructions were given and the jury was split six to six, those instructions were as favorable to the defendant as they were to the State. And even when the final supplemental instructions were given in this case, defendant's attorney, who had acquiesced in the giving of the original supplemental instructions and who was able and experienced, may well have deliberately withheld exceptions to the terms of those instructions under the strategy that the defendant might obtain complete acquittal as a result of such instructions. For these reasons, this was particularly the type of case in which a defendant should not be permitted to withhold exceptions at the time of trial and then urged on appeal, and for the first time, that the judgment should be reversed because of error in the giving of such instructions. [48]