Court Opinion

ID: 9768250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:52:35.58317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:38.580881
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
By its motion for rehearing GAMI has directed our attention to matters contained in a supplemental transcript. It consists of a question from the jury to the trial judge made during deliberation, and the trial judge’s response. They are as follows:
“Judge Young
“Special Issue # 30
“We do not consider GAMI officers and agents to include those that are employed by Wynnewood since issue # 29 covers Wynnewoods officers and agents.
“Right?
“R B Brown
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
“Replying to the attached note, you will consider Special Issues 29 and 30 separately and independent of each other.
“Please retain your note and this reply.
“Ardell M. Young
“Judge presiding”
In view of the above it appears that the statements in our original opinion that there was no indication that the jury was informed of the possibility or considered the possibility that the Bank might be GAMI’s agent or co-adventurer are incorrect. However, we conclude that this will not affect the result in this case.
There was no objection to the trial court’s instruction. Therefore error therein, if any, is waived. GAMI claims that we have erred in concluding that the trial court’s submission of the issue of knowledge of the restrictions in special issues nos. 29 and 30 was harmless error. Obviously, because the Bank’s knowledge was imputed to GAMI as a matter of law, the issue is adverse to GAMI. However, this is not the test for harmless error under Rule 434. The test is whether the error was calculated to cause and probably caused the rendition of an improper verdict. We are still of the opinion that the verdict and the judgment rendered in this case are proper.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.