Court Opinion

ID: 9707034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:59:18.06601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:27.266752
License: Public Domain

*631Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I am unable to accept the majority’s conclusion that this case involves a “secret communication” between judge and jury. The record is undisputed that counsel for the defendant was present in the courtroom and heard the judge place upon the record in open court, prior to the taking and recording of the jury’s verdict, both the jury’s written inquiry and the court’s written response. Thus the majority in this case goes even further in applying its prophylactic rule than it did in Gould v. Argiro, 422 Pa. 433, 220 A. 2d 654 (1966); Kersey Mfg. Co. v. Rozic, 422 Pa. 564, 222 A. 2d 713 (1966); and Yarsunas v. Boros, 423 Pa. 364, 223 A. 2d 696 (1966).
I must therefore continue to express my opposition to such an unwarranted, unnecessary, and unwise rule. As is clearly demonstrated in Mr. Justice Musmanno’s dissenting opinion in the instant case, the majority directs a retrial upon a basis unrelated to trial error, prejudice, or any other traditional concept of reversible error. I am compelled to reiterate my opposition to the automatic granting of a new trial on the basis of the Court’s recently created prophylactic rule aimed at innocuous communications between judge and jury. See Yarsunas v. Boros, 423 Pa. 364, 368, 223 A. 2d 696, 698 (1966) (dissenting opinion) ; Kersey Mfg. Co. v. Rozic, 422 Pa. 564, 570, 222 A. 2d 713, 716 (1966) (concurring opinion) ; Lobalzo v. Varoli, 422 Pa. 5, 7, 220 A. 2d 634, 636 (1966) (concurring opinion); Commonwealth v. Kulik, 420 Pa. 111, 114, 216 A. 2d 73, 74 (1966) (dissenting opinion).
The majority concedes that its new rule produced this appeal. Undoubtedly it will generate many other appeals equally without merit, further burdening this Court as well as the trial courts.
I dissent.