Court Opinion

ID: 9561048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:01:45.160755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:30.152347
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
The sole proposition that prevents unanimity in the case at bar is, did the trial court admonish the jury when declaring a recess. I could readily agree with what my learned associate recites in his dissenting opinion, if the record affirmatively supported his conclusions. But it is not so established in the record. It does not appear that the court did not admonish the jury, during the recess in question, not to talk about the case among themselves or permit others so to do. If the record so showed, then under a long line of decisions we would be compelled to reverse this case.
The record merely shows that the reporter was momentarily not present when the recess was announced. His notes reveal this minute: “The court reporter being out of the room and making no record of the court’s admonition to the jury, the court announced a short recess.” This writer is of the opinion that the language in the minute readily supports the presumptions long indulged by this court, that where the record does not affirmatively disclose the doing of something which was its duty to do, in the absence of proof to the contrary, every presumption favors the regularity of the proceedings. Such is the situation in the case at bar. It does not affirmatively appear that the trial court did not admonish the jury — it only appears that the reporter was absent if and when the same took place. The burden was on the appellant to show that the trial court gave no admonition to the jury. Galbert v. State, Okl.Cr., 278 P.2d 245. And see 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 859. If no such admonition was given, it was the duty of counsel to immediately dictate such fact into the record, and in the absence of the jury, he should have offered affirmative proof by witnesses, court attaches, etc., that no such admonition was given. There is nothing in the record except the heretofore recited minute, to sustain the conclusion set forth in the dissent. To support the conclusion reached we must presume error. This court has repeatedly said error will never be presumed, but must affirmatively appear in the record. Wilson v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 714, 109 P. 289; Anderson v. State, 8 Okl.Cr. 90, 126 P. 840; Edwards v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 306, 131 P. 956, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 701; Alexander v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 89, 248 P. 873; Bynum v. State, 40 Okl.Cr. 352, 268 P. 993; Kennamer v. State, 59 Okl.Cr. 146, 57 P.2d 646; Nowlin v. State, 65 Okl.Cr. 165, 83 P.2d 601; Denmark v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 424, 112 P.2d 437, 113 P.2d 608.
To follow the dissenting opinion it would be necessary to violate this time honored rule.