Court Opinion

ID: 9791996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:21:43.262203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.031565
License: Public Domain

Judge JONES
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to Part III of the majority opinion. I agree with defendant that the trial court erred in failing to respond adequately to the inquiry from the jury concerning the felony murder count.
When a deliberating jury affirmatively indicates to the trial judge that it does not understand an element of the offense charged or some other matter of law central to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the judge is obligated to clarify the matter for the jury in a concrete and unambiguous manner. Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252 (Colo.1986).
Colorado has adopted ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 15-4.3(a) (2d ed. 1980) as a guide for determining when a trial judge is to give additional instructions in response to an inquiry from a jury. Standard 15-4.3(a) provides:
“If the jury, after retiring for deliberation, desires to be informed on any point of law, they shall be conducted to the courtroom. The court shall give appropriate additional instructions in response to the jury’s request unless:
“(i) the jury may be adequately informed by directing their attention to some portion of the original instruction;
“(ii) the request concerned matters not in evidence, or questions which did not pertain to the law of the case; or
“(iii) the request would call upon the judge to express an opinion upon factual matters that the jury should determine.”

See also Leonardo v. People, supra.

A jury should be referred back to the original instructions only when it is apparent that the jury has overlooked some portion of the instructions or when the instructions clearly answer the inquiry. “Referring the jury back to the same instruction that created the doubt in their minds could serve no useful purpose.” Leonardo v. People, supra.
Here, the jury did not overlook the relevant instructions; it simply failed to understand them. Moreover, even if the instructions had clearly answered the inquiry, the trial court still was obligated to direct the jury's attention to that part of the original instructions which would clarify the issue at hand. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 15-4.3(a)(i) (2d ed. 1980). The court failed to do so. It failed to respond to the inquiry with adequate specificity to comport with the Standard’s requirement that the court direct the jury’s attention ■ “to some portion of the original instruction.”
In essence, the court gave the jury no guidance at all. This failure to respond adequately to the jury’s inquiry was prejudicial error, Leonardo v. People, supra, and requires reversal.