Opinion ID: 2162655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Was the trial court required to state its reasons for finding the defendant guilty?

Text: It would have been preferable that the trial court, as suggested by standard 11 of the judicial code, [9] accompany his finding of guilt with a brief summary of his reasons for so doing. Where the issue was so evidently one of credibility of witnesses, that might well have been no more than the statement made by the trial court at the hearing on motions for a new trial. The court then stated: I didn't believe any of the defendant's testimony. Obviously, the decision rested almost entirely on which witness, the juvenile or the defendant, was to be believed and found to be giving the truthful account of what had happened. However, reversal is not indicated where a finding of guilt is not accompanied by a statement of reasons for finding the defendant guilty. Courts have travelled a long ways since the decision that summarized trial court practices in this regard as follows: So far as we are advised, it is the usual and customary practice of trial judges, upon the rendition of the verdict or the entering of a plea of guilty, to adjudge thereon that the defendant is guilty, stating the offense, and proceed thereupon to declare the sentence. While it may not be error to depart from this practice, it certainly makes the record more definite and certain and leaves nothing to be implied. [10] At least, on this record, the finding of guilt by the court with no jury involved was definite and certain and left nothing to be implied. There was no room for doubt as to what crime the defendant was found guilty of committing and why he was found guilty. His testimony was not believed by the court. The testimony of the state's witness was. By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed.