Court Opinion

ID: 9561047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:01:45.156925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:30.026805
License: Public Domain

NIX, Judge
(dissenting).
A close examination of the record precludes me from agreeing with Judge POWELL’s conclusion that defendant’s contention that the trial judge failed to admonish the jury as required by statute was erroneous. The transcript of the record which was sworn to as being a full, true and correct transcript of all the proceedings does not reveal that such admonition was given. However, the transcript does reflect that after the jury was permitted to separate, the defense counsel made the following motion:
“If your honor please, at this time comes now the defendant and objects to the continuing of this trial at this time upon the grounds and for the reason that prior to and during the last recess there was no admonition to the jury covering their conduct during the recess of the case.”
This motion was overruled without comment.
The defendant in a motion for a new trial again charged that the trial judge allowed the jury to separate without admonishing the jury. This motion was overruled without comment, or denial of the allegation. The fact was never denied by the trial judge. The state’s attorney made no denial in their brief. The transcript of the record showed no admonitions. The authors of the majority opinion justify their conclusion upon a notation in the minutes as follows:
“The court reported being out of the room and making no record as to the court’s admonition to the jury, the court announced a short recess.”
This they say was sufficient for them to conclude that the trial judge gave the required admonition. I cannot subscribe to such conclusion. I cannot lead myself to believe that a reputable attorney of the bar *1075would subject himself to the hazard of making false accusations upon which to base his appeal. Neither can I concur in such conclusion when the record substantiates the defendant’s allegations. It appears to your writer that had said allegation been unfounded, the trial judge would have refuted the allegation by so stating in the record. I am of the opinion that when the question was raised on a 'motion for a new trial that the court again passed up- the opportunity to correct the attorney for defense had the allegation not been true. The attorney general in his brief evidently did not so conclude as he did not attempt to deny the defendant’s contention, but attempted to justify it. In the majority opinion Judge Powell quoted with approval and adhered to the findings in the case of Rutherford v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 311, 245 P. 2d 96, 106, and made clear his desire that nothing stated in the majority opinion was to be considered contrary thereto.
In that case the court said:
“It is therefore our conclusion that a court, at every separation of the jury and at each adjournment in a criminal trial should give the statutory admonition and at least an abbreviated admonition referring to the previous full admonition at each temporary cessation of proceedings, but where it appears, as here, that at the first adjournment, and before any separation of the jury was had, the court had given the statutory admonition, and that the admonition was duly given at each adjournment thereafter, and the record discloses a trial otherwise fair and impartial, the judgment will not be reversed simply because during the session of the court a temporary intermission or recess (while the attorneys retired with the judge to his chambers to consider the admissibility of certain documentary evidence offered by defendant) took place without the admonition being given" as a preliminary thereto. * * *
“If the court had failed either prior to the argument in his chambers, had the same been called to his attention, of admonishing'the jury, or had on reconvening of the court failed to question the jurors as to any impropriety, then such failure would have properly constituted a iground for new trial and on hearing of motion the rules announced in the Brink and Redman cases [Brink v. Territory, 3 Okl. 588, 41 P. 614; Redman v. Territory, 2 Okl. 360, 37 P. 826], would probably have applied, and the burden would have been on the State to have shown that no impropriety actually took place.”
This, and similar decisions of this Court-state the established rule. They are based upon similar violations of the statute which I reiterate, 22 O.S.A. § 854:
“The jury must also, at each adjournment of the court, whether permitted to separate or kept in charge of officers, be admonished by the court that it is their duty not to converse among themselves or with any one else on any subject connected with the trial, or to form or express any opinion thereon, until the case is finally submitted to them.”
It is obvious to your writer that the judge failed to comply with this section of our statutes. Thus, the statute was violated. Under many holdings of this court with reference to juries^ when the statute is violated it is presumed that the defendant was prejudiced thereby, and the burden is then upon the state to prove otherwise. The error may have been cured had the trial judge," upon the jurors return to'the box, made such inquiry as to show a lack of prejudice; however",- he did not do. This court said in Ridley v. State, 5 Okl. Cr. 522, 115 P. 628, 630:
“It is of the utmost importance that jurors and court officials should be held to a strict observance of the provision of the law prescribing their procedure and duties, and their conduct should be such that no possible suspicion can attach to them of having acted in a manner prejudicial to the accused, or *1076in his favor * * * Courts cannot he too strict in compelling rigid and vigilant observance of the provisions of the statute designed to preserve inviolate the right of trial by jury and the purity of jury trials.”
It has long been recognized that the great element of distinction between us in the enemies of democratic form of government is trial by jury. It must not only be preserved but rigid enforcement must be exemplified in maintaining the safeguards surrounding its sanctity. These safeguards must never be so relaxed as to cast suspicion thereon. Its cloak of purity must at all times be kept clean. The statute did not intend that a jury could leave the jury box and court room and mix and mingle with the people and crowd usually present without first being admonished, that it is their duty not to talk among themselves or with any one else about the trial or to form or express any opinion. The statutes are clear and concise. It was enacted for a good purpose. A violation should not be made an exception. It should be strictly complied with in every instance. To affirm the instant case would be the first step in gradually pulling away from the general rule and opening the gate for future exceptions to further confuse the issue.