Court Opinion

ID: 9696895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:01:14.275446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.523004
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
The objectionable part of instruction No. 17 is the following: “Insofar as there may be any conflict in the evidence it is your duty to reconcile it if you can; if *322you cannot, then to determine which is true and which is untrue, * * (Italics supplied.)
Possibly one trained in the law would understand that when the jury is told it is the sole judge of the credibility of the evidence, the word “duty” as used does not have its usual connotation, but would a layman so understand it?
Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed., Unabridged), p. 802, defines “duty” as: “That which is required by one’s station or occupation”; and “That which a person is bound by moral obligation to do or not to do; * *
If a jury must reconcile, we are restricting its right to discard or reject undisputed testimony. This is emphasized by the words “if you cannot (reconcile), then to determine which is true and which is untrue; * *
If testimony can be reconciled, and the jury still does not believe it, must it be accepted? The inference is that it must.
'What does this wording do in a criminal case to the presumption of innocence if the defendant does not testify?
If an instruction, particularly in a criminal case, could be misconstrued, should we not presume that it was so misconstrued?
I believe instruction No. 17 to be prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.
Judges Yeager and Boslaugh have authorized me to say that they join in this dissent.