State v. Burnetts

Citation295 P.2d 377,80 Ariz. 208
Decision Date03 April 1956
Docket NumberNo. 1067,1067
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Willie Mae BURNETTS, Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of Arizona

Arthur M. Johnson, Phoenix, for appellant.

Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

UDALL, Justice.

Defendant Willie Mae Burnetts was charged with the crime of manslaughter, a felony. She plead not guilty and was thereafter placed on trial and convicted by a jury of the offense charged. After denying a motion for new trial the court sentenced the defendant to serve a term of not less than two nor more than four years in the State Penitentiary.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the lower court erred in denying the motion for new trial. Defendant relies upon the following 'incident'-which occurred approximately one hour after jury had retired to deliberate upon their verdict-as being so prejudicial as to require a reversal. We set forth the trial judge's version of the incident, viz.:

The Court:

'At approximately 6:15 on the date the matter went to the jury, the bailiff, Mrs. Gibbons, in response to a call from the jury room came to my chambers and stated that the jurors desired to see Exhibit A. Shortly prior thereto this office had been informed by counsel for the defendant that they were leaving the telephone (sic) for dinner.

'I took it upon myself to go to the door of the jury room and stated to the jury that Exhibit A, the transcript of the preliminary hearing, had been withdrawn.

'A male member of the jury, whose identity I cannot recall, who was at the far end of the jury room next to the window, stated, 'We have a question: If we find the defendant guilty, can we write on the verdict that we recommend leniency?' Whereupon I stated that it could not be written on the verdict, but that an oral announcement could be made when the verdict was found, in Court.

'This statement was made in the presence of the entire jury since all of the jurors were between me and the juror who had asked the question.

'This happened at approximately 6:15. This jury did not reach a verdict until approximately 10:15 that same evening. I believe that is substantially the facts that you have with slight modifications.'

It is further conceded that no court reporter nor counsel for either the state or defendant were there present or knew anything about the occurrence until later. It seems that the defendant was then sitting across the hall some ten feet away from the door of the jury room but there is no showing she was aware of what was taking place.

It further appears from the minutes that at the time the verdict was received and recorded, the foreman of the jury '* * * states that it is the unanimous recommendation of the jury that leniency be shown the defendant'. Counsel for defendant then requested that the jury be polled, which was done.

In response to defendant's (appellant's) opening brief the Attorney General, in person, with commendable frankness has confessed error, stating:

'After reviewing all the authorities the State can come to only one conclusion: that it is reversible error for the trial judge in a criminal case to communicate with members of the jury after it has retired to deliberate, unless such communication is done in open court in the presence of defendant and counsel.'

This statement may be a little broad but is, generally, in line with the prevailing rule on the subject. There can be no question but that in the discharge of his official duty, the place for the judge is on the bench. As to him, the law has closed the portals of the jury room, and he may not enter. Rule 281, Rules Crim.Proc.1956 (formerly rule No. 328, § 44-1907, A.C.A.1939), provides:

'After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they desire additional instruction upon any point of law arising in the action or to have any testimony about which they are in doubt or disagreement read to them, they shall upon their request be conducted into the courtroom by the officer who has them in charge and the court shall give them such additional instruction or shall order such testimony read to them. Such instruction may be given and such testimony read only after notice to the county attorney and counsel for the defendant.' (Emphasis supplied.)

In 53 Am.Jur., Trial, section 904, this fine statement appears:

'* * * After submission of the cause, the judge may not enter the jury room and there, in the absence of the parties and their counsel, communicate with the jurors or advise them of their duties; * * * A violation of this rule in a criminal case has been held to deprive the accused of a constitutional right, and in any case is regarded as ground for a new trial or as constituting reversible error, irrespective, according to many courts,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • State v. Swoopes
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 2007
    ...actually entered the jury room to communicate with jurors. See State v. Werring, 111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 (1974); State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 295 P.2d 377 (1956). Arizona courts have distinguished such occurrences from situations in which a trial judge merely answered jury questions.......
  • State v. McDaniel
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1983
    ...questions submitted by the jury while deliberating); State v. Werring, 111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 (1974) and State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 295 P.2d 377 (1956) (both cases involved the actual physical intrusion by the judge into the jury room where he communicated orally with the panel on......
  • State v. Mata
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1980
    ...improper and that prejudice need not be shown to establish error. He cites in support of his position such cases as State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 295 P.2d 377 (1956); State v. Werring, 111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 (1974) and State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 543 P.2d 779 The general rule in A......
  • State v. Hilliard
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1982
    ...two Arizona opinions which have dealt with this situation have denounced this practice in the strongest terms. See State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 295 P.2d 377 (1956); State v. Werring, 111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 In Burnetts, in response to a jury inquiry, the trial judge took it upon hims......
  • 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