Court Opinion

ID: 9601616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:47:52.909954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:59.214570
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(dissenting) — I agree that the giving of the instruction without consulting counsel is error. However, I am unable to satisfy myself that it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While I would not retain a conclusive presumption of error as was done in the early Washington cases, I would strictly examine the circumstances of each case where such an error occurred and hold the State to a high standard of proving a lack of prejudice. Under the facts of this case, where the basic determination is between credibility of the complaining witness and the defendant, where a jury deliberates for the better part of 6 hours before the inquiry is made and then requests a further clarification at 11 p.m., where counsel are not consulted and have no opportunity to make even an affirmative response to the inquiry and the jury, albeit the following morning, comes in with a verdict of guilty to a lesser included offense, I am unable to conclude that the error was not prejudicial. There existed within the minds of the jurors some area of conflict. The inquiry regarding the distinction between active and passive resistance appears to me to be a distinction that could have clouded the deliberations of the *478jury even though they did reach a verdict of rape in the third degree. I would reverse and grant a new trial on the basis that I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.5
Reconsideration denied July 10, 1979.
Review denied by Supreme Court October 12, 1979.

United States v. Glick, 463 F.2d 491, 493 (2d Cir. 1972); Bustamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Schor, 418 F.2d 26, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1969); Aillon v. State, 173 Conn. 334, 377 A.2d 1087 (1977); Aillon v. State, 168 Conn. 541, 363 A.2d 49 (1975); State v. Moore, 38 Wn.2d 118, 228 P.2d 137 (1951); State v. Christensen, 17 Wn. App. 922, 924, 567 P.2d 654 (1977); 4 Wharton, Criminal Procedure § 561 (12th ed. 1976).