Court Opinion

ID: 9536884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:08:44.020751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:26.993589
License: Public Domain

WOOD, Judge (dissenting). In my opinion, the trial court committed two errors, and the combination of these two errors prejudiced the defendant. 1.Undue emphasis on the instruction. The jury had been instructed; final arguments were taking place. The state had made its opening argument and defendant had made his argument. The state was making its closing argument. Most of the state’s closing argument had been completed when the District Attorney referred to an instruction on impeachment. No instruction on impeachment had been given. Defendant objected. In the presence of the jury, the trial court agreed that no impeachment instruction had been given, stating that it had been inadvertently omitted. The proceedings were at a standstill while the trial court sent his reporter to fetch the instruction. The instruction was then read to the jury. Defendant, who had previously concluded his jury argument, was then allowed to argue the impeachment instruction. The state then concluded; a substantial portion of these concluding remarks pertained to the impeachment instruction. The majority opinion states that “it is error to single out one instruction for undue emphasis.” The impeachment instruction was unduly emphasized; from the time of defendant’s objection until the case was submitted to the jury the emphasis was on the impeachment instruction. 2. The rule. “ * * * [T]he judge in all cases shall charge the jury before the argument of counsel.” Section 41-11-12, N.M.S.A. 1953; § 21-1-1(51) (2) (e) N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1967). The majority hold that this rule does not “* * * deprive the trial judge "of his right to give additional instructions where the situation warrants such action.” I assume that the majority have correctly stated the law; however, I do not believe that the situation warranted the trial court in giving the additional instruction. We are not concerned here with instructions given after the case had been submitted to the jury; rather, the instruction was given during an interruption in closing argument of counsel. What warranted the giving of the instruction? The only thing in the record supporting the trial court action is the comment by the judge that the instruction had been inadvertently omitted. This omission does not, in my opinion, justify giving the instruction at that point in the trial because by giving it the trial court singled out and unduly emphasized one instruction. I would hold that the trial court violated the rule. 3. Prejudice. To obtain a reversal, I assume defendant must have been prejudiced by the two errors. Wheeler v. Hotel Stevens Co., supra; Purcell v. Warburton, supra; compare Olguin v. Thygesen, 47 N.M. 377, 143 P.2d 585 (1943). The impeachment instruction was unduly emphasized; it was given in violation of the rule that the jury is to be instructed prior to argument of counsel. In my opinion, prejudice is shown by the fact that the unduly emphasized instruction was given in violation of the rule. The majority feeling otherwise, I dissent.