Court Opinion

ID: 9517904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:36:25.058664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:47.144048
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Arterburn, C.J.
I do not agree that the interrogation of the jurors as to the alleged prejudicial newspaper article should have taken place prior to their retiring for a verdict. As the majority points out, each juror would have had to be interrogated separately as to his knowledge, outside the presence of the other jurors. If the interrogation is done after the verdict is returned, it can be done in the presence of all the jurors and can be done more expeditiously. The same *366remedy is available in either case; the judge, after the verdict, can set it aside, grant a new trial, etc.
I point out additionally that if the trial judge had interrogated each juror prior to the verdict with reference to the newspaper item and its contents, more prejudice would likely have resulted by reason of each juror being informed about the matter and the material being emphasized in his mind. Interrogation after the verdict seems to me to be a more proper procedure at a more sensible time .
Neither do I think that the newspaper article was prejudicial. The article referred to rape as part of the burglary. Undoubtedly the jury was entitled to know what happened during the burglary. The newspaper article gave no details. The prosecuting witness testified “he made me go to bed” and “I don’t want to talk about it.” Any person knows what she was talking about and that rape was involved as part of the burglary. I don’t think the jurors got any new information. In addition, no juror under oath admitted that he was influenced by anything he read.
I therefore vote to approve the Court of Appeals opinion.
Givan, J., concurs.
Note.—Reported in 295 N. E. 2d 819.