Court Opinion

ID: 9678376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:18:14.886878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:03.971369
License: Public Domain

MALONEY, Judge,
dissenting.
Although the court in this case attempted to instruct the jury that they should not show their notes to other jurors and that if other jurors attempted to show their notes, they should caution that juror that doing so was improper, I would nevertheless disallow the practice of jury note-taking altogether and the use of the notes by the note-taking juror during deliberations.
The majority points out that many jurisdictions allow note-taking by jurors; the majori*961ty fails to distinguish those jurisdictions which have recognized that prejudice arises when the juror notes are taken into the jury room and used during deliberations. See, e.g., United States v. Kimberlin, 527 F.Supp. 1010 (S.D.Ind.1981) (where juror notes disposed of prior to deliberations, no prejudice shown), aff'd, 805 F.2d 210 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1023, 107 S.Ct. 3270, 97 L.Ed.2d 768 (1987); White v. State, 552 P.2d 1161 (Okla.Crim.App.1976) (no prejudice where juror notes not used in jury deliberations); Bakhit v. Thomsen, 193 Neb. 133, 225 N.W.2d 860 (1975) (although note-taking generally frowned upon, no prejudice where no showing that notes used in jury room); State v. Emrick, 129 Vt. 475, 282 A.2d 821 (1971) (note-taking not prejudicial in absence of showing that notes were taken into jury room or considered during deliberations); Fisher v. Strader, 399 Pa. 222, 160 A.2d 203 (1960) (where notes surrendered before deliberations, no prejudice shown).
This state has jealously guarded against the intrusion into the jury room of matters not in evidence. Our opinions in this case and in Price v. State, 887 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) diminish the effectiveness of our efforts to keep the deliberations of a jury pure. For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.