Court Opinion

ID: 9786555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:57:53.572553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:46.392533
License: Public Domain

*254Judge ROY
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority's result and rationale with respect to unitary trials. I write separately to express a concern about the conflict between a unitary trial and a defendant's right against self-inerimination. The linchpin of the majority opinion is the presumption that juries follow the trial court's limiting instructions. While I repose considerable confidence in juries, I am concerned that the protection of fundamental constitutional rights is ultimately entrusted to juries whose conduct with respect to those rights is not subject to reasonable challenge or review.
My concerns were summarized by a division of the Missouri Court of Appeals in a case applying a statute similar to ours:
Implicit in the posture of the prosecution is the contention that the procedure required by [the statute] for an oral instruction concurrently with the admission of the in-culpatory statements and the formal instruction at submission of the case insures that the jury will confine consideration of the evidence to the issue of the mental state of the accused and not to guilt, and so vouchsafes the constitutional right against self-incrimination. That assumes an ability for fairness to tax even the most earnest jury.
State v. McGoautha, 617 SW.2d 554, 561 (Mo.Ct.App.1981)(emphasis added). But see State v. Ohmes, 645 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.Ct.App.1984).
The presumption that the jury followed the court's instructions and the limitations on review of the jury's deliberations, CRE 606, are intended to assure the finality of the judgment, not to assure that a defendant's fundamental constitutional rights have been respected and preserved. Indeed, while it may be theoretically possible, it is practically impossible to verify that those rights were respected and preserved. And in a case in which the evidence of guilt is weak and a verdict of guilty is returned, it would, in my view, be likely that the defendant's rights were not respected or preserved.