Court Opinion

ID: 9712303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:51:08.881631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.407920
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion condones the trial court's refusal to include, as a final instruction, its preliminary instruction regarding one of the defendant's key issues, self defense. I disagree.
A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defense which has some foundation in the evidence. Warren v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 342; Harrington v. State (1980), Ind., 413 N.E2d 622; Cyrus v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 461, 464, 381 N.E.2d 472, 474, cert. denied (1979), 441 U.S. 935, 99 S.Ct. 2058, 60 L.Ed.2d 664.
Ind.Code § 85-87-2-2 prescribes the proper sequence of events to be followed in a criminal trial. It provides that following conclusion of the evidence and presentation of any argument of counsel, "[the court shall then charge the jury." (Emphasis supplied) I.C. § 35-87-2-2(5). The statutory provision includes the following:
In charging the jury, the court must state to them all matters of law which are necessary for their information in giving their verdict.
Thus, it is necessary that all proper instructions in any given case be given to the jury following argument of counsel, and before they retire to deliberate.
The wisdom and importance of this procedure is underscored by the necessary procedure to be followed when a jury, during deliberations, indicates it has a problem concerning an issue of law. We have recommended that the trial court reread all instructions without further comment. Lewis v. State (1981), Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107; Wallace v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 84; Cameron v. State (1979), 270 Ind. 185, 383 N.E.2d 1039. This is important because of the need for the jury to hear all instructions at the same time, so that none receive undo emphasis, and so that none are forgotten while the jurors may be focusing on a single specific issue. Instructions given to the jury should be considered and construed as an entirety. Bowers v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 4, 146 N.E. 818.
In Brannum v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 51, 366 N.E.2d 1180, this Court reversed a murder conviction because the trial judge gave an additional special instruction to the jury in the middle of their deliberations. Writing for the majority, Justice Pivarnik noted that the giving of this special instruction: .
emphasized this provision as one of primary importance to the jury, and tended to tell them what they ought to do. It is fundamental that a court should not, by an instruction, cast suspicion on any defense or evidence offered. [Citations omitted.]
267 Ind. at 59, 866 N.E.2d at 11. These same factors apply with equal force of logic when a crucial instruction is omitted from the body of final instructions given to guide the jury's deliberations. A proper subject for final instructions cannot be merely relegated to the preliminary instructions.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent from the majority.
SHEPARD, J., concurs.