French v. State, A-13309

• Decision Date: 19 December 1962
• Docket Number: No. A-13309,A-13309
• Parties: James D. FRENCH, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 501

377 P.2d 501

James D. FRENCH, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-13309.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 19, 1962.

As Corrected Jan. 4, 1963.

Syllabus by the Court

1. No person can be compelled in a criminal action, to be a witness against himself; nor can a person charged with a public offense be subjected before conviction to any more restraint than is necessary for his detention to answer the charge; and, in no event, shall he be tried before a jury while in chains or shackles. (Title 22 O.S.A. § 15)

2. Where the defendant was brought into the court room in the presence of the jury panel, accompanied by three armed guards while his hands were cuffed and arms bound to a six inch leather belt about his body, and thereafter brought into court in the same condition while a portion of the jury empaneled to try said cause was in the jury box; a violation of the Statute occurred, and defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.

3. All persons are entitled to be cloaked with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and prisoners are no exception to the rule. To bring a prisoner before the jury or jury panel while in chains and shackless destroys that presumption and constitutes Reversible Error.

4. A defendant shall have the unrestrained use of his limbs and shall not suffer any physical bond or burden that may lead the jury to draw a foregone conclusion that defendant must be a dangerous and violent person and thus a prejudice created in the mind of the jury against defendant that would deny him a fair and impartial trial.

5. The trial judge is master of his court and should use every means within his grasp to see that the defendant is not paraded before a jury or jury panel while chained or manacled, as every defendant is entitled during every stage of the trial to have free use of his faculties, mentally and physically.

6. The trial judge should counsel with the Sheriff or Warden, as the case may be, to work out arrangements before trial to prevent prejudice being inflicted upon defendant by having jury view him in bonds.

Appeal from the District Court of Pittsburg County; W. A. Lackey, Judge.

James D. French was convicted of the crime of murder, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Leon G. Belote, McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Richard Penix, Pittsburg County Atty., for defendant in error.

NIX, Presiding Judge.

James D. French, who hereinafter will be referred to as the defendant, was charged in the District Court of, Pittsburg County with the crime of Murder. He was tried before a jury who found the defendant guilty and fixed his punishment at death. He lodged his appeal in this Court within the time prescribed by law, asserting numerous assignments of error. We will deal with only one which we deem sufficient to justify reversal.

Defendant's paramount contention arose out of the defendant being brought before the jurors while handcuffed and his arms shackled to a six inch leather belt around his body, escorted by three armed guards. This, to which the defense counsel objected, happened on two different occasions. The first time being on the day of trial before the trial had begun, but in the presence of the jury panel. The second time being on the second day of trial while several of the jurors empaneled to try said cause was seated in the jury box. Defendant was in such manner, seated in a chair at the counsel table and while one guard stood watch, the other two removed the cuffs and the belt around his body, to which the cuffs were shackled. All in the presence of at least a portion of the jury that had been chosen to determine defendant's fate.

Though defense counsel offered vigorous objection to this procedure, the trial court overruled the objection and gave, as his reason on the first occasion, that the trial had not begun; and for the second occurrence, that it was prior to the convening of court.

The question for the court to determine is whether this procedure constitutes a violation of Title 22 O.S.A. § 15, which reads:

'No person can be compelled in a criminal action to be a witness against himself; nor can a person charged with a public offense be subjected before conviction to any more restraint than is necessary for his detention to answer the charge, and in no event shall he be tried before a jury while in chains or shackles.'

We are of the opinion that the Statute was designed to prohibit an occurrence as is depicted in the case at bar. The history of the Statute strongly indicates that its origin was to preserve two inherent rights that all men who come before the bar of justice, as a matter right, are entitled to.

First, one charged with a crime is entitled to appear in court with free use of his faculties, both mentally, and physically. The Common Law rule is to the effect that a prisoner brought into the presence of the court for trial upon a plea of not guilty, was entitled to appear 'Free of all manner of shackles and bonds, unless there be evident danger of escape, and then he may be secured by irons'. Blackstone 4th Com. 332.

In the case of State v. Williams, 18 Wash. 47, 50 P. 580-581, 39 L.R.A. 821, 63 Am.St.Rep. 869-871, it was said:

It was the ancient rule at common law that a prisoner brought before a jury with his hands chained in iron, and refuses, on his application or that of his counsel to order their removal, the jury must necessarily conceive a prejudice against the accused as being in the opinion of the Judge, a dangerous man, and one not to be trusted, even under the surveillance of officers. Besides, the condition of the prisoner in shackles may, to some extent, deprive him of the free and clam use of all his faculties. Section 22, Art. 1, of our Constitution declares that: In criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person. The right here declared is to appear with the use of not only his mental but his physical faculties unfettered and unless some impelling necessity demands the restraint of a prisoner, to secure the safety of others, and his own custody, the binding of the prisoner in irons is a plain violation of the constitutional guaranty.

A more elaborate discussion of the rule appears in Blair v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 319, 188 S.W. 390:

'At early common law when a prisoner was brought into the court for trial, upon his plea of not guilty to an indictment for a criminal offense, he was entitled to make his appearance free from all shackles or bonds. This is his right to-day in the United States.'

The other inherent right intended to be preserved by the Statute was the presumption of innocence that every defendant is cloaked with, until proven guilty. Am.Jur. Vol. 14, page 855:

'The spirit of the law is that a prisoner, upon his trial before a jury, shall have the unrestrained use of his limbs and shall not suffer any physical bonds or burdens which might tend to confuse or embarrass his mental faculties. Furthermore, a prejudice might be created in the minds of the jury against a prisoner who should be brought before them handcuffed and shackled, which might interfere with a fair and just decision of the question of the guilt or innocence of such prisoner.'

This appears to be the modern reasoning which motivated the present statute which has been heretofore cited, supra.

Until 1953, the...