Court Opinion

ID: 9673594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:14:55.63573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.943980
License: Public Domain

*673O’Hara, J.
(for affirmance). I agree with and concur in all of Mr. Justice Souris’ opinion except that which he designates “I-D” and which is concerned with the incident in the jury room involving a court officer during a recess. My able Associate properly enunciates the rule that a court officer should not converse with jurors at any time, except in the fulfillment of his duties. As I read the record, this is precisely what the bailiff did. Mr. Justice Souris has quoted the questioning of the officer and I need not requote it. The straightforward answers of the officer to the court and counsel may not reflect the precision of phrase nor the nicety of distinction of an academician but they do portray to me an eminently honest officer who conveyed no information that could possibly have influenced the jury. I also read the record as establishing that the late Circuit Judge Edward Kane, the other circuit judge of that circuit, was present in the room when the incident took place. It is inconceivable to me that had any impropriety occurred that he would not have immediately reported it to the trial judge.
I find no reversible error in the colloquy. Certainly, I can find in it no suggestion that defendant Hard-wick was or was not insured.  In simple substance, I do not believe that jurors are so easily influenced as to permit the quoted exchange between some of them and the bailiff to affect their verdict. Since this is the sole ground upon which Mr. Justice Souris reverses and remands, I reach the opposite conclusion. I would affirm the judgment, with costs to plaintiff.
Kelly, J., concurred with O’Hara, J.