Court Opinion

ID: 9580859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:42.613482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:34.463890
License: Public Domain

Barrow, J.,
concurring.
I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the bailiffs communication with eight jurors out of the presence of the defendant was harmless. Since the record does not reveal what the bailiff said to them, this conclusion is not supported by the record.
The trial court’s diligent effort to assure that the jury would avoid media coverage of the trial created two problems: First, the bailiffs instruction to the jurors was made out of the presence of the defendant. See Code § 19.2-259; Quintana v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 127, 145, 295 S.E.2d 643, 652 (1982); Lewis v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 411, 412, 184 S.E.2d 818, 819 (1971); Palmer v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 592, 605, 130 S.E. 398, 402 (1925). Second, the record does not disclose what the bailiff said to the jurors. See Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 150 (1892); Gray v. Hutto, 648 F.2d 210, 211 (4th Cir. 1981); United States v. Rakes, 74 F. Supp. 645, 648 (E.D. Va. 1947).
Standing alone, the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury to avoid media coverage and his action in instructing the bailiff to contact each juror at home and give such an admonition were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, see Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 119-20 (1983); Ellis v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 419, *71424, 317 S.E.2d 479, 481-82 (1984); however, the record does not reveal what the bailiff actually told the jurors. Therefore, we cannot conclude from this record that the communication was harmless.
However, reversal is not required. Responsibility for this omission from the record lies with the defendant and her counsel. Immediately upon opening court on the second day of trial the trial court advised the attorneys and the defendant what had happened the preceding evening. He also initiated and carried out an examination of each of the jurors to learn if they had received any news information of the trial. The defendant made no objection to the trial court’s action nor did counsel examine the jurors to ascertain the content of the bailiffs communication. By failing to examine the jurors and by failing to object to the court’s action, see Rule 5A:18, the defendant prevented the trial court and this court from evaluating the impact, if any, of the bailiffs communication to the jurors. Consequently, the defendant by her passive acquiescence waived her right to object to the trial court’s procedure. See United States v. Gagnon, 105 S. Ct. 1482, 1485 (1985); Gray v. Hutto, 648 F.2d 210, 211 (4th Cir. 1981).
I otherwise concur with the majority’s opinion and agree that the judgment should be affirmed.