Court Opinion

ID: 9674756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:34:53.316336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.618783
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
The majority reverses because they believe that proposed CJI 7:8:02A, read correctly to the jury by the trial judge, is erroneous. Although never formally adopting the standard Criminal Jury Instructions, the Supreme Court has recommended their use. If they are to be changed, the Supreme Court is the court vested with the power to do so. Until they do, I would not be inclined to find reversible error in the use of the Supreme Court’s recommended standard jury instructions.
No objection to the jury instruction was made at trial. There is no question but that the innocent victim, a housewife, was cruelly and violently raped by defendant. Before subjecting her to another trial, I would want a far more convincing showing that defendant’s right to a fair trial was infringed. In fact, the "reversible error” relied upon by the majority was a rather minor variation in a lengthy instruction as to how the jury should view and interpret the psychiatrist’s and psychologist’s testimony.
Sometimes there is an impression that the appellate court exaggerates a little the extent to which a jury hangs on every word of a jury instruction. I do not believe that if the jury had been instructed as suggested by the majority, a different *149result would have been reached by the jury. Neither do I believe there was any miscarriage of justice here.
I would affirm.