State v. Gorman
| Decision Date | 08 March 1982 |
| Citation | 628 S.W.2d 739 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Lloyd B. GORMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., William W. Hunt, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellee.
Jim W. Stambaugh, Morristown, for appellant.
The sole question on appeal before this Court concerns the effect of oral instructions to the jury made prior to the submission of the written charge. It was error for the trial judge to violate the requirements of T.R.Cr.P. 30(c) in failing to submit "every word" of his charge to the jury in written form. Even though error was committed, T.R.A.P. 36(b) provides that a final judgment will not be set aside unless that error more probably than not affected the judgment. Thus, the scope of our review will be to determine whether this error may be considered harmless.
Defendant was convicted of several different counts for selling Schedule II, III and IV controlled substances. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial judge prefaced the reading of the written instructions with seven pages of preliminary remarks. After a careful comparison of the preliminary remarks and the written charge we are in agreement with the following portions of the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion:
"The trial judge made a significant oral commentary to the jury immediately prior to the written charge. This commentary covered various subjects: the function of the judge, the duty of the jury, the nature and number of the cases on trial and the necessity for a unanimous verdict as to each defendant, as to each indictment, and as to each count; the method of reporting a verdict; the enhancement of punishment, if applicable; an explanation of the indeterminate sentence law.
....
The written charge was an exhaustive dissertation. It covered in a substantial way each oral instruction; indeed, appellant does not contend otherwise. His complaint is that the instructions were delivered orally, not that they were erroneous or not thereafter included in the written charge."
We do not agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' statement that admonition, explanation, curative instructions and the like are "jury instructions" whenever or at what stage of the trial made, and thus, that a literal compliance with the requirement that each word be reduced to writing, "would be unrealistic if not impossible." The rule applies to the instructions given at the conclusion of the trial.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v Beeler
...rule, while error, is not reversible unless it more probably than not affected the judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); State v. Gorman, 628 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. 1982). The form of the instructions is not as important as their content. It is not error for part of the charge to be handwritten......
-
State v Beeler
...rule, while error, is not reversible unless it more probably than not affected the judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b); State v. Gorman, 628 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. 1982). The form of the instructions is not as important as their content. It is not error for part of the charge to be handwritten......
-
State v. Bristol
...instructions constituted a breach of a clear and unequivocal rule of law—namely, Rule 30(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Gorman , 628 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. 1982)6 —and that this breach adversely affected Bristol's constitutional right to trial by a properly ins......
-
State v. Brewer, W2017-01725-CCA-R3-CD
...held that the requirement that "every word of the judge's instructions shall be reduced to writing" is mandatory.4 See State v. Gorman, 628 S.W.2d 739, 740 (Tenn. 1982) (citing McElhaney v. State, 420 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tenn. 1967)). There is no indication in the text of the rule that the req......