Opinion ID: 1351998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial judge's response to the jury's question on mental damages

Text: Appellant argues that the trial judge's response to the jury's question regarding mental damages was so inadequate that it amounted to reversible error. Rule 30(d), HRCrP, in part provides: If, during deliberation on its verdict the jury shall request further instructions, the court may further instruct the jury in accordance with instructions prepared by the court and reduced to writing, first submitting the same to counsel. (Emphasis added.) We are of the opinion that the trial judge's response was not inadequate and that the court's rereading of a portion of the original instruction was a proper response to the jury's question. [4] Furthermore, the record does not show and the appellant has not shown that the court's rereading of a portion of the original instruction has confused or left an erroneous impression in the minds of the jurors. See United States v. Polite, 489 F.2d 679, 681 (5th Cir.1974); Perez v. United States, 297 F.2d 12, 16 (5th Cir.1961).