Court Opinion

ID: 9683456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:29:07.003362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.009549
License: Public Domain

LUNDSTEN, J.
(concurring).
¶ 30 I join all of the majority's decision. I write separately to add a reason why the trial court's response to the jury inquiry about an inappropriate telephone call made by Lombard should be affirmed.
¶ 31. During deliberations, the jury sent out the following question: "When did [Lombard] make the inappropriate phone call to a female staff member of the correctional institution (Fox Lake or Oshkosh or Sand Ridge Institution)?" An exhibit "received into evidence" by the trial court, but never presented to the jury, indicated that the phone call had been made while Lombard was at Fox Lake. The majority explains that one of Lombard's arguments is that "because this information was in an exhibit that was admitted into evidence, the trial court could have and should have instructed the jury on this information even though the jury had not seen the exhibit or heard this testimony." Majority at ¶ 28. The majority's analysis leaves out the most obvious reason this argument lacks merit: evidence that is not presented to a jury during the eviden-tiary phase of a trial is not evidence for purposes of jury deliberations. Absent a stipulation by the parties that the jury could be told the information, Lombard's request during the jury deliberation phase of the trial was simply a tardy attempt to present evidence to the jury.