Court Opinion

ID: 9543917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:26.849902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:28.474078
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge:
I concur in the result of this opinion and agree that the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. However, I disagree with the majority’s statement that:
[to] some extent at least, we must rely on the professionalism and good faith of our trial judges in such matters. There are, perhaps, some occurrences at the trial level which are impossible to review on appeal. Suffice it to say that as an appellate court we will continue to review every aspect of proceedings at the trial level which are possible to review. There are, however, limitations on our ability to review effectively each and every minor detail which occurs at trial.
In the instant case the record contains only the following concerning the trial judge’s alleged raising of his voice:
*101MR. HEMPHILL: Yes. First of all, everytime you mentioned ‘threats’, you raised your voice and emphasized the word.
THE COURT: Well, just because I raised my voice I didn’t mean to emphasize the use of the word ‘threats’. I don’t know what I can say, I really don’t recall.
Counsel sought no further remedy than to call the judge’s attention to the claim that he had raised his voice. The issue is waived on appeal, as counsel did not request cautionary instructions or take any other action with respect to this conduct by the judge. In addition, we agree with the majority that a fair reading of the charge adequately demonstrates its fairness despite any inadvertent voice inflections which might have occurred.
Unfortunately this court is not permitted to rely on the professionalism and good faith of the trial judge with respect to errors in the trial of a case. It is the duty of an appellate court to fully review' each case on appeal within the parameters of the facts as they appear in the record and the applicable law. Moreover, there are suitable methods to bring into the record any error or impropriety which counsel feel had an adverse affect on his client’s right to a fair trial. I believe it is misleading to indicate that there are some areas of review that are beyond our scope.