Court Opinion

ID: 9633587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:53:40.099838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:37.872058
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
When this defendant-appellant attempted to except to the refusal of the trial judge to give to the jury an instruction, not requested by this defendant but by the other man who was being tried concurrently *95with him, the defendant did not gain a basis for an assignment of error. The two defendants had been indicted separately. The trial would result in two judgments — not one. They had separate counsel. The appeals would be separate and purported errors were not equally applicable to the two defendants. The mere fact that the trial judge, possibly as a routine matter, said “Exception allowed,” does not control ns. This defendant had not requested the instruction drafted by Hibbard’s counsel and had not joined in Hibbard’s request. The fact that he and Hibbard were being tried by the same jury did not give the one of them the benefit of errors, if any, that were committed at the expense of the other. If one of the defendants, without joining in the other’s request for an instruction, may at that point save an exception, the trial judge and the district attorney are placed in a most difficult position as to the composition of the instructions and the reception of the evidence. When the defendants are two or more in number, they must unite in their motions and objections or be dealt with as individuals.
Upon the above basis I concur.