Court Opinion

ID: 9793970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:55:58.39955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:16.613963
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice PARKER,
dissenting.
The prevailing opinion is grounded on what in my view are two fundamental er*683rors, one of the applicable law and one of the facts as disclosed by the record. Accordingly, I must dissent.
The law upon which the opinion seems to be largely predicated stems principally from Nicholson v. State, 18 Wyo. 298, 106 P. 929, which interprets and applies § 5385, Rev.St.1899 (now § 7-237, W.S.1957), providing, inter alia:
“ * * * In the trial of capital cases the jury shall not be permitted to separate, after being sworn, until discharged by the court. In other felonies and misdemeanors, the separation of the jury may be permitted in the discretion of the court, until charged, after which no separation shall be allowed until discharged.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The instant prosecution was not a capital case, and what was said in Nicholson is inapplicable. Moreover, a reasonable interpretation of that case showed a new trial should not be granted unless there was a showing of prejudice or unless it did not appear that the defendant was not prejudiced.
Although the majority opinion emphasizes the offhand remark of the court that defense counsel had grounds for reversal, it omits the fact that defense counsel objected to cross-checking with the jurors and likewise fails to state the judge’s ultimate ruling on the point when he said, “this can be considered as harmless error as long as nothing was mentioned with respect to any matter pertaining to this case. I think there has to be come substantial right of the defendant jeopardized before a mistrial comes up, and this is a borderline case, but I am going to take a stand that there was nothing that was prejudicial to the defendant.”
What I have said should in no way be interpreted to excuse the reprehensible conduct of the officers, who were sufficiently within the jurisdiction of the court to have justified a citation for contempt.