State v. Robin
| Decision Date | 17 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3009,3009 |
| Citation | 112 Ariz. 467,543 P.2d 779 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Gonzales ROBIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty. by Joseph P. Shaw, and Lyle O. Reinsch, Deputy County Attys., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Robert Gonzales Robin was found guilty of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He now appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2, § 24 and Article 6, § 5 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12--120.21.
We need only discuss one issue presented on appeal: whether it was error for the trial judge to have communicated with the jury in the absence of the defendant and counsel. We find that it was.
The jury sent the judge questions which dealt with issues of fact and the judge answered from his notes and his recollection of the relevant testimony. It is improper for a trial judge in a criminal case to communicate with the jurors after they have retired to deliberate unless the defendant and counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present. State v. Werring, 111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 (1974); State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 295 P.2d 377 (1956). Where the communication concerns the case and particularly issues of fact, the defendant is not required to show actual prejudice. State v. Burnetts, supra.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. CAMERON, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and SANDRA D. O'CONNOR, Superior Court Judge, Maricopa County, and WILLIAM W. NABOURS, Superior Court Judge, Yuma County, concur.
Note: Justice LOCKWOOD, retired, and Justice HOLOHAN did not participate in the determination of this matter. SANDRA D. O'CONNOR, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, and WILLIAM W. NABOURS, Judge of the Superior Court of Yuma County, sat in their stead.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Swoopes
...witness to the jury in [the defendant's] absence violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation."); see also State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 467, 543 P.2d 779, 779 (1975) (Confrontation Clause issue presented when asked questions involving factual issues and trial judge answered from hi......
-
State v. Whitley
...in the present case, there are situations when the violation of the above-cited rules will not be harmless. See, e.g., State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 543 P.2d 779 (1975) (reversing the defendant's conviction when the trial court communicated with the jury outside of the defendant's and defe......
-
State v. Christensen
...judge is not to communicate with the jury during its deliberations without first notifying counsel and the accused. State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 543 P.2d 779 (1975). The purpose of this rule is to prevent the judge from injecting his own opinions into the deliberations or influencing the ......
-
State v. McDaniel
...gun registration was not the type which warranted an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendant. Cf. State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 543 P.2d 779 (1975) (the trial judge answered from his notes and recollection questions submitted by the jury while deliberating); State v. Werring......