Court Opinion

ID: 9693063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:18:47.489864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:39.458604
License: Public Domain

*542Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
In my view the court crier’s two conversations with the jury entitle appellant to a new trial, and for this reason I dissent.
The majority asserts that the court crier’s remarks to the jury were “not harmful to appellant”. However, a majority of this Court has held in a series of civil cases that any communication from the judge to the jury in the absence of counsel requires the granting of a new trial, no matter how innocuous or nonprejudicial that communication might have been. See Argo v. Goodstein, 424 Pa. 612, 228 A. 2d 195 (1967); Yarsunas v. Boros, 423 Pa. 364, 223 A. 2d 696 (1966); Kersey Manufacturing Co. v. Rozic, 422 Pa. 564, 222 A. 2d 713 (1966); Gould v. Argiro, 422 Pa. 433, 220 A. 2d 654 (1966). There is certainly no justification for our being any less scrupulous in insulating a criminal jury from any improper outside influence, and while I remain unpersuaded as to the wisdom of this prophylactic rule,* if a majority of this Court is to apply that rule in civil trials it should likewise be applied in criminal trials where liberty or even life itself is at stake. It does not matter that the above cases all involved communications by a judge whereas this case involves jury conversations with a court crier: remarks by a court crier are even less proper than remarks by a judge in the absence of counsel.
Moreover, I believe that there was at least potential prejudice in the present case. On two separate occasions one and one-half hours apart, the foreman of the jury inquired of the court crier whether appellant had made any statement at the time of his arrest. These inquiries raised the distinct and substantial suspicion that the *543jury was including in its deliberations matters not in evidence. Upon learning of these events, the trial court should have immediately summoned the jurors into the courtroom and warned them again of their duty to render a verdict solely on the basis of the evidence presented at trial, thereby reducing the possibility that that duty would be disregarded.
Finally, I cannot agree with the majority’s determination that appellant has waived his oportunity to seek the reversal of his conviction upon the basis of the court crier’s conversations with the jury. The purpose of the doctrine of waiver is to ensure that the trial court be alerted to any possible errors. The trial court in the instant case was so alerted. As the majority itself states, appellant’s counsel promptly expressed his concern as to the ominous implications of the jury foreman’s conversations with the court crier and requested appropriate cautionary instructions. The giving of such instructions was precluded by the trial court’s later acceptance of the jury’s verdict. This the trial court should not have done.

 See Yarsunas v. Boros, supra, at 368, 223 A. 2d at 698 (dissenting opinion); Kersey Manufacturing Co. v. Rozic, supra, at 570, 222 A. 2d at 716 (concurring Opinion).