Anglin v. State, No. 49A02-9604-PC-250

Docket NºNo. 49A02-9604-PC-250
Citation680 N.E.2d 883
Case DateJune 09, 1997
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 883

680 N.E.2d 883
James R. ANGLIN, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 49A02-9604-PC-250.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
June 9, 1997.
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1997.
Transfer Denied Oct. 1, 1997.

Page 884

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Hope Fey, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for Appellant-Defendant.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Suzann Weber-Lupton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Appellant James R. Anglin (Anglin) appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief asserting that the trial judge's responses to certain jury questions during deliberations constituted prejudicial error.

We affirm.

Because we affirm the post-conviction court's determination that the error, if any, was harmless, we need not address Anglin's assertions that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel.

During the habitual offender phase of Anglin's original trial, the jury sent two notes to the trial judge during deliberations. The first read: "What is the definition of a Commitment paper." The judge responded: "you have heard all the evidence. PJG." The second note read: "Would like to see the evidence presented by the State--12 & 13 referring to 'Commitment' paper." To which the court responded: "The Ct. does not send the evidence to the jury room. PJG." Record at 78. The trial court did not return Anglin or his counsel to court, reread the final instructions or supply the jury with the requested exhibits. The record does not reflect whether Anglin was aware that the jury had sent these notes to the judge. Anglin asserts that the court's responses to these notes were prejudicial error.

Page 885

Anglin's contention is that the trial judge was required to conduct the jury in to court in the presence of the parties by I.C. 34-1-21-6:

After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there is a disagreement between them as to any part of the testimony, or they desire to be informed as to any point of law arising in the case, they may request the officer to conduct them into court, where the information required shall be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the parties or their attorneys.

I.C. 34-1-21-6 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.1986).

It is clear that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure in responding to the jury's notes. 1 "When jurors request guidance from the court during deliberations, the proper procedure is for the judge to notify the parties so they may be present in court before the judge communicates with the jury, and the judge should inform the parties of his proposed response." Madden v. State (1995) Ind.App., 656 N.E.2d 524, 526, trans. denied (citing Marsillett v. State (1986) Ind., 495 N.E.2d 699, 709). When the judge participates in ex parte communications with the jury, a rebuttable presumption of error is created. Id.

Admittedly in one note, the jury merely asked the court to see certain exhibits presented by the State 2. In Grayson v. State (1992) Ind.App., 593 N.E.2d 1200, this court concluded that the trial court is not compelled to grant a request when the jury merely requests to rehear testimony without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Robinson v. State, No. 49S00-9706-CR-387
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 2, 1998
    ...in the Court of Appeals on the issue whether the statute applies to requests relating to all forms of evidence. Compare Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (statute held to apply to request to review documentary exhibits) with Riggs v. State, 689 N.E.2d 460, 462 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (requests "to ......
  • Riggs v. State, No. 49A02-9702-PC-120
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 15, 1997
    ...656 N.E.2d at 307, this court stated: "Jury requests to review exhibits are not within the scope of IC § 34-1-21-6." In Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied, a different panel of this court recently commented on the foregoing statement in Jones and ostensibly cla......
  • Sturma v. State, No. 77A04-9604-CR-144
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 11, 1997
    ...probably because the jury over interpreted the intended meaning of disagreement. I wholly agree with the decision in Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. Ct.App.1997) and, accordingly, would simply hold that the request itself established "disagreement" within the meaning of the 1 Ind.Code......
  • Bouye v. State, No. 49S00-9703-CR-201
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 20, 1998
    ...or confusion about that evidence, thus triggering the statute any time a jury makes a request for testimony. See Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Winters, 678 N.E.2d 405 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). We find the first line of cases more persuasive. Had the General Assembly i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Robinson v. State, No. 49S00-9706-CR-387
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 2, 1998
    ...in the Court of Appeals on the issue whether the statute applies to requests relating to all forms of evidence. Compare Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (statute held to apply to request to review documentary exhibits) with Riggs v. State, 689 N.E.2d 460, 462 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (requests "to ......
  • Riggs v. State, No. 49A02-9702-PC-120
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 15, 1997
    ...656 N.E.2d at 307, this court stated: "Jury requests to review exhibits are not within the scope of IC § 34-1-21-6." In Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied, a different panel of this court recently commented on the foregoing statement in Jones and ostensibly cla......
  • Sturma v. State, No. 77A04-9604-CR-144
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 11, 1997
    ...probably because the jury over interpreted the intended meaning of disagreement. I wholly agree with the decision in Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. Ct.App.1997) and, accordingly, would simply hold that the request itself established "disagreement" within the meaning of the 1 Ind.Code......
  • Bouye v. State, No. 49S00-9703-CR-201
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 20, 1998
    ...or confusion about that evidence, thus triggering the statute any time a jury makes a request for testimony. See Anglin v. State, 680 N.E.2d 883 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); State v. Winters, 678 N.E.2d 405 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). We find the first line of cases more persuasive. Had the General Assembly i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT