Court Opinion

ID: 9663035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:26:22.632741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:45.058805
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
I join in that portion of Judge Grant’s dissent which characterizes the evidence of defendant’s intoxication as inadmissible.
Moreover, I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that the trial judge’s comment during the prosecutor’s closing argument that the judge thought “the evidence does reflect it, counsel,” is “tantamount” to, or the equivalent of, saying “Overruled.” The latter suggests only that there is no merit to the objection, perhaps only because different inferences could *730be drawn from the evidence. The former implies that the judge has weighed the evidence and has concluded the fact to be as stated by the prosecution. Those are obviously two different things; thus one cannot be the equivalent of the other.
In reversing a condemnation award in Langdon v. Loup River Public Power District, 144 Neb. 325, 13 N.W.2d 168 (1944), in part because of the trial judge’s misconduct, this court recognized that a party is entitled to have the jury pass on the evidence without interference by the trial judge. Such a concept can be no less important in a criminal trial than it is in a civil one.
To suggest that the prosecutor’s admonition to the jury that it make its own judgment on the evidence cures any error arising from the judge’s comment is to ignore the realities of jury trials. As noted in Hansen v. State, 141 Neb. 278, 3 N.W.2d 441 (1942), jurors are alert to the judge’s attitude respecting the merits of a case, particularly in criminal trials.
During the course of a trial, the judge should refrain from making remarks which may have a tendency to influence the jury. Pitt v. Checker Cab Co., 217 Neb. 600, 350 N.W.2d 507 (1984). He or she should be ever mindful that a judge’s role is to govern a trial in such a manner that each party is assured fairness. Persuasion is the task of advocates, not of jurists.
As Judge Grant has observed, this case rests upon circumstantial evidence which presents close questions of fact. I cannot conclude that the admission of evidence concerning defendant’s intoxication and the trial judge’s editorial comment did not prejudice the defendant. I also would reverse and remand for a new trial.