Court Opinion

ID: 9717005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:56:00.104776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:50.651108
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Judge,
dissenting in part, concurring in part.
I concur in the result reached in Judge Robertson’s opinion and in the reasons given for that decision. However, I strongly dissent from the statement above at 423 N.E.2d 701, that sending a copy of the written instructions to the jury room for the jury’s use during deliberations is a practice which is not recommended. In my view, sending the written instructions to the jury room, after the trial judge has read them aloud to the jury, is of great assistance to the jury and fosters the purpose of instructions. Therefore, I believe it is a practice which should be encouraged rather than condemned.
I am fully aware that our supreme court in Jameison v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 599, 377 N.E.2d 404, said that as a general rule instructions were not to be sent to the jury *703room, but found any error in so doing to be harmless. This court in McNall v. Farmers Insurance Group, (1979) Ind.App., 392 N.E.2d 520, trans. denied (1981), cited by the majority in support of its position, relying upon Jameison, also held such practice was harmless error. On the other hand, this court in Snelling v. State, (1975) 167 Ind.App. 70, 337 N.E.2d 829, held such practice to be proper.
The purpose of instructions to the jury is to inform the jury of all matters of law which are necessary for them to consider in arriving at their verdict. Such rules of law must be kept in mind by the jury at all times during their deliberations. To expect them to discharge this duty properly with only their memories of the judge’s reading of those instructions to guide them places a heavy burden on lay jurors. Permitting the jury access to the written instructions would ease that burden and aid the jury in performing its assigned duty.
In Copeland v. United States, (D.C.Cir.1945) 152 F.2d 769, 770, cert. denied 328 U.S. 841, 66 S.Ct. 1010, 9 L.Ed. 1615, the court said:
“But we think it is frequently desirable that instructions which have been reduced to writing be not only read to the jury but also handed over to the jury.... We see no good reason why the members of the jury should always be required to debate and rely upon their several recollections of what a judge said when proof of what he said is readily available.”
The Supreme Court of Arizona in Valley Nat. Bank v. Witter, (1942) 58 Ariz. 491, 121 P.2d 414, 420, held it was commendable for the court to send the written instructions to the jury room, stating:
“The purpose of the instructions is to advise the jury as to the law, and at all times in considering its verdict a jury should keep them in mind. We can think of no better method of enabling it to do this than to have the written instructions of the court always before it.”
In United States v. Standard Oil Co., (7th Cir. 1963) 316 F.2d 884, the court, relying upon Copeland v. United States, supra, held it was not error for the court to hand the jury a copy of its instructions. The reading of the instructions required more than an hour. The court said, at 896: “As litigation grows increasingly complex, the jury often. may be helped in their deliberations by having a copy of the instructions before them.”
The then existing arguments both for and against sending the instructions to the jury room were reviewed in Note, The Availability of Written Instructions to the Jury in Indiana, 33 Ind.L.J. 96 (1957). On page 106 it is said:
“In jurisdictions which require or permit written instructions to be taken into the jury room as the jury retires, the primary reason advanced for such a practice is the desire to provide a practical method of avoiding errors of memory and to give the jury a better opportunity to understand the precise terms of the instructions. The logical appeal of this practice is apparent. Instructions must be designed to serve an omnibus purpose; and, even a cursory examination of the scope and content of the court’s charge indicates the enormity of the burden placed upon the juror’s capacity to remember.” (Footnote omitted.)
See also, Cunningham, Should Instructions Go Into The Jury Room?, 33 Calif.St.B.J. 278 (1958).
In Snelling v. State,„ supra, Judge Sullivan disposed of the argument sometimes made that sending instructions to the jury room enhanced the influence of those jurors of greater reading skill in the following language:
“In light of today’s education standards, it is persuasively argued that giving the jury written copies of the instructions which have been read in open court is more likely to promote equality than to rely on equally retentive memories.”
167 Ind.App. at 80, 337 N.E.2d at 836.
I do not advocate substitution of written instructions for the reading of the instructions to the jury in open court. Reading of the instructions by the judge in open court is crucial, Snelling v. State, supra, and the *704failure to do so is reversible error. Purdy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 282, 369 N.E.2d 633. After the reading of the instructions to the jury, it is clearly not error to send the written instructions to the jury room. In my view, not only is it not error, but it is entirely proper to do so and is a practice to be encouraged, if not required.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.