Cameron v. State, No. 1077S752
| Docket Nº | No. 1077S752 |
| Citation | 270 Ind. 185, 383 N.E.2d 1039 |
| Case Date | January 03, 1979 |
Page 1039
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[270 Ind. 186]
Page 1040
Duge Butler, Jr., Kenneth R. Cady, Indianapolis, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Terry G. Duga, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PIVARNIK, Justice.
Appellant Cameron was convicted of commission of a felony while armed, to-wit, rape, and of inflicting injury in the course of a robbery, at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Marion Criminal Court on March 22, 1977. He was sentenced to a determinate term of twenty years imprisonment and to life imprisonment, respectively, for the two crimes.
Among the errors asserted in this appeal, it is argued that the trial court erred by his behavior in interposing himself into the jury deliberations and emphasizing a particular instruction. We agree, and reverse the judgment of the trial court on this basis.
The facts necessary for an understanding of the problems that arose in this case are as follows. First, final instructions were sent to the jury room during deliberations, but were never in fact read to the jury by the trial judge. We have since held that this same procedure, as instituted and implemented by this same trial judge, is contrary to law and constitutes reversible error. Purdy v. State, (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 633. While such error has not been claimed or perfected in the present case, it is noteworthy because it was an initial irregularity which undoubtedly added to the irregularities here. About three and one half hours after they retired, the jurors returned to the courtroom and reported that they were having problems understanding court's instruction no. 25A, which defined insanity relative to appellant's insanity defense. In the presence of both the prosecutor and defense counsel, the court then began a lengthy dialogue with the jury, during which he attempted to answer questions that they asked him.
Most of the dialogue between the trial judge and the jury concerned instruction no. 25A, which was frequently repeated and "explained" to the jury, such as in the following passage:
THE COURT: . . . Once there is established to your satisfaction that a mental disease or defect exists then you make a determination[270 Ind. 187] as to whether or not now remember this as a result of the mental disease or defect the accused lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts. That means that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. That's about it in a nutshell. . . .
Also, the court at times answered direct questions from jurors, sometimes emphasizing testimony which had been taken at trial:
UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Can you any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State, No. 71S00-9709-CR-510
...reread the instructions to the jury without further comment. See, e.g., Wallace v. State, 426 N.E.2d 34, 36 (Ind.1981); Cameron v. State, 270 Ind. 185, 187, 383 N.E.2d 1039, 1041 (1979); Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1184-85 (1977). Cases involving a jury which informs......
-
Reynolds v. State, No. 1182
...796, 798; Wallace v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 34, 36; Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107, 111; Cameron v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 185, 187, 383 N.E.2d 1039, The trial court obviously did not adhere to the appropriate procedure, and Defendant argues that such action violated In......
-
Cameron v. State, No. 480S98
...those convictions to this Court. On January 3, 1979, this Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial for Cameron. Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1039. The sole issue disposed of on that appeal concerned the trial court's interposing himself into the jury deliberations and emphasizing a partic......
-
Wallace v. State, No. 678S101
...concerning an issue of law, the trial court should reread the instructions without further comment. Cameron v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1039, 1041; Brannum v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1184; Woods v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 92, 97, 304 N.E.2d 817, 820. We held......
-
Foster v. State, No. 71S00-9709-CR-510
...reread the instructions to the jury without further comment. See, e.g., Wallace v. State, 426 N.E.2d 34, 36 (Ind.1981); Cameron v. State, 270 Ind. 185, 187, 383 N.E.2d 1039, 1041 (1979); Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1184-85 (1977). Cases involving a jury which informs......
-
Reynolds v. State, No. 1182
...796, 798; Wallace v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 34, 36; Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107, 111; Cameron v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 185, 187, 383 N.E.2d 1039, The trial court obviously did not adhere to the appropriate procedure, and Defendant argues that such action violated In......
-
Cameron v. State, No. 480S98
...those convictions to this Court. On January 3, 1979, this Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial for Cameron. Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1039. The sole issue disposed of on that appeal concerned the trial court's interposing himself into the jury deliberations and emphasizing a partic......
-
Wallace v. State, No. 678S101
...concerning an issue of law, the trial court should reread the instructions without further comment. Cameron v. State, (1979) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1039, 1041; Brannum v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1184; Woods v. State, (1974) 159 Ind.App. 92, 97, 304 N.E.2d 817, 820. We held......