Court Opinion

ID: 9691475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:35:05.31094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:21.140108
License: Public Domain

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I agree that the conduct about which defendant complains was not plain error. I write separately to suggest, however, that this opinion should not be read as allowing a trial court carte blanche authority to preface an instruction patterned after MAI-CR3d 312.10 with comments regarding how long a jury would be kept in order for it to reach a verdict. The result reached in this case should, in my opinion, be considered only in the context of the specific facts of this case. A reasonable time passed between the time the trial judge informed the jury it would be staying late in order to permit it to reach a verdict and the time the jury reported its inability to do so, after which the instruction patterned after MAI-CR3d 312.10 was read. The time between the trial judge’s remarks regarding the need to stay late and the giving of the instruction negates defendant’s claim that the comments were, in effect, a part of the instruction. Another factor negating defendant’s argument is the explanation that *736the decision to have the jury stay beyond the time it would normally recess was weather related.
Although no plain error occurred in this case, remarks similar to those of this trial judge could, in other circumstances, put a judgment in peril on appeal. In the event an instruction patterned after MAI-CR3rd 312.10 is given, trial courts should make conscious efforts to avoid comments that could be construed as additional explanations of, or reasons for, that instruction.