State v. Corrales
| Decision Date | 21 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 588 P.2d 846,121 Ariz. 104 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Johnny Ortega CORRALES, Appellant. 1265-2. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant was found guilty of second-degree burglary and grand theft and sentenced to serve concurrent terms of five to ten years for the burglary conviction and ten to fifteen years for the grand theft conviction.
Appellant's first point is that the court improperly communicated with the jury outside the presence of the prosecutor, defense counsel and the accused. After approximately two and one-half hours of deliberation, the jury sent a message to the judge containing the following:
Counsel for appellant claims that a decision was reached shortly after the judge's communication back to the jury. It is not clear from the record whether the message was contained in one note or two. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial judge testified that, "The only thing that I told them was to continue with their deliberations."
As a general rule, it is error for the trial court to answer questions of fact or law propounded by the jury after the jury has retired, outside the presence of the attorneys and without stipulation of the parties. State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 543 P.2d 779 (1975); State v. Werring,111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 (1974). Rule 22.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
We agree with appellee that the court's instruction to continue deliberations is neither communication concerning the facts of the case nor the law of the case. However, the purpose of Rule 22.3 is to prevent the court from injecting its own opinions into the jury's interpretation of the facts. As we said in State v. Streyar, 119 Ariz. 607, 583 P.2d 263 (App.1978), "It is the possibility of coercive effect in the query that must be scrupulously avoided." A communication to the jury to continue deliberations after they have been deliberating for a few hours, appellant claims, carries with it an implication that the trial court will wait until the hold-outs cave-in.
The rule is clear and trial courts are reminded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christensen
...123 Ariz. 301, 305-306, 599 P.2d 754 (1979); State v. Pawley, 123 Ariz. 387, 390, 599 P.2d 840 (App.1979); State v. Corrales, 121 Ariz. 104, 105, 588 P.2d 846 (App.1978). But the defendant has no right to be personally present during such communications. State v. Pawley, supra. Appellant ar......
-
State v. McDaniel
...doubt that there was no prejudice to the defendant, such communication is harmless error. State v. Mata, supra; State v. Corrales, 121 Ariz. 104, 588 P.2d 846 (App.1978). We believe that the court's responses to the inquiries regarding witness testimony operated as a refusal to answer. McDa......
-
State v. Mata
...law of the case, and we cannot conceive of any coercive effect that they could possibly have had upon the jury. See State v. Corrales, 121 Ariz. 104, 588 P.2d 846 (App.1978). We, therefore, find no reversible counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present. State v. Lamb, ......
-
State v. Martin, A04-279.
...courts have similarly not placed the burden on the defendant to prove harmlessness where the record is incomplete. State v. Corrales, 121 Ariz. 104, 588 P.2d 846, 847 (1978) (reversing a conviction because an incomplete record precluded the court from finding that jury communications were h......