Court Opinion

ID: 9680443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:31:51.994372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:28.582592
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant’s first ground of error concerns the receipt and acceptance of the jury verdict by the trial judge.
I first point out that this is not a case where the jury returned an improper verdict, and was thereafter instructed by the trial judge to retire in order to return a proper verdict. It is, however, a case where the trial judge committed error simply because he failed to adhere to the statutes which govern the receipt and acceptance of a jury verdict. E.g., Hay v. State, 472 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
Articles 37.04 and 37.10, Y.A.C.C.P., govern how the verdict of the jury shall be returned and accepted by the trial judge. Those statutes, though clearly written, were not complied with in this cause.
Because I believe that it will be helpful to the reader to better understand appellant’s complaint, I have attached to this opinion an appendix, which consists of the verdict form page and the court reporter’s notes concerning what took place after the jury returned its verdict to the trial judge. The record reflects that as to the first verdict that was returned and accepted by the trial judge, the jury foreperson only signed his signature under the last and bottom verdict form. The final verdict referred to the first or top verdict form, with the foreperson scratching out his signature that was under the last or bottom verdict form, with such act being initialed.
The record also reflects that prior to the time the jury retired to deliberate, the trial judge specifically and expressly told the jury that “if you have any questions about [the verdict form], then ... You can always ask [me] for further information or by writing a written note.” The jury never requested further information and did not communicate in writing with the trial judge.
During the prosecuting attorney’s jury argument, the trial judge also told the jury: “If they [the jurors] recommend it [probation], then I must follow it.”
The majority of this Court, using this Court’s decision of West v. State, 340 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1960), as authority, overrules appellant’s ground of error. I agree that West stands for the proposition that “When the jury has not separated or have only momentarily separated and are still in the presence of the court and it appears that no one has talked to the jurors about the case,” it is then permissible for the trial judge to order the jury to retire and return a proper verdict. However, that rule of law is not applicable to this case because this case does not concern a jury returning an improper verdict. The original verdict of the jury clearly stated that the jury assessed appellant’s punishment at four years’ confinement in the penitentiary, and also stated the following: “And we further find that he has never before been convicted in this or any other state of a felony, and recommend that said punishment be probated.” The trial judge accepted this verdict of the jury, and then discharged the jury from further service.
I acknowledge that after the trial judge had received and accepted the jury verdict, he only read part of the verdict, failing to read the part about recommending probation. Unfortunately, the record never reflects why he did not at that time read the entire verdict.
The record also reflects that the trial judge, after he accepted the verdict and read part of it, later took it upon himself to question and poll the jury, at which time it was learned: “That was not our verdict.” *784Unfortunately, the record does not reflect what caused or motivated the trial judge to act as he did.
There is yet another reason why West is not applicable to this cause. The record in this cause clearly reflects that after the jury was discharged by the trial judge, they communicated with counsel for the appellant. Trial counsel for appellant stated into the record the following: “... because I notice reading at the bottom [of the verdict form], because that was probation and they told me they had not done probation.” [Emphasis Added]. As to when “they told me” is not reflected in the record, but the statement by counsel certainly indicates to me that they spoke to counsel after they had returned their verdict and after the trial judge read aloud part of the verdict.
I therefore recommend that the sentence be reformed to reflect that appellant’s punishment was assessed by the juiy at four years’ confinement in the penitentiary, but probated for that period. To the majority’s failure to accept my recommendation, I respectfully dissent.
APPENDIX
[[Image here]]
*785[[Image here]]
*786[[Image here]]
*787[[Image here]]
*788[[Image here]]