Turner v. State, 569
| Decision Date | 01 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 569,569 |
| Citation | 257 N.E.2d 825,254 Ind. 91 |
| Parties | Thomas Carl TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 119. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Chester R. Callis, Vevay, Cooper, Cooper, Cooper & Cox by Curtis M. Jacobs, Madison, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Edward Squier Neal, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged with murder in the second degree. The jury returned its verdict, finding appellant guilty as charged.
The trial court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial. The facts constituting one of the allegations of error in the motion for a new trial and also raised on this appeal can be summarized as follows: On October 14, 1968 the jury was escorted to the jury room by the bailiff. Approximately one-half hour after they had entered the jury room for deliberation, the foreman of the jury opened the door and indicated he wished to speak to the bailiff. The foreman asked the bailiff what the appellant would get if they (the jury) convicted him of second degree murder, to which the bailiff answered 'life'. The foreman then required as to how much time the defendant would actually have to serve of such a sentence, to which the bailiff responded that he did not know but that it would depend on his good behavior. The jury returned its verdict 45 minutes later. We reverse and grant appellant a new trial.
We believe the principles discussed by this court in Deming v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 282, 133 N.E.2d 51 are controlling. In that case one of the jurors asked the bailiff to inquire of the judge as to the possibility of the defendant being paroled if found guilty of second degree murder. After contracting the judge, the plaintiff reported to the jurors that it would be entirely up to the institution. In holding this conduct to be reversible error we stated:
For decisions in other jurisdictions see 41 A.L.R.2d 227, and the cases cited in State v. White (1958), 27 N.J. 158, 172, 142 A.2d 65, 72.
In the instant case it was erroneous to tell the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. State
...ex parte delivery of legal opinions or instructions to the jury. Wallace v. State, (1977) Ind., 363 N.E.2d 956; Turner v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 91, 257 N.E.2d 825; Deming v. State, (1956) 235 Ind. 282, 133 N.E.2d 51. In this case appellant has not shown any "communication" between bailiff ......
-
Cobb v. State, 778S142
...number of years of imprisonment." (emphasis in original) See Baum v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 176, 379 N.E.2d 437; Turner v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 91, 257 N.E.2d 825. The trial court correctly withheld information regarding the possible sentence for bank Cobb next argues the prosecutor commi......
-
Decker v. State
...Thus, it has been held to be reversible error for the bailiff to discuss the effect of "good time" on a life sentence, Turner v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 91, 257 N.E.2d 825; for the bailiff to explain the verdict forms, Laine v. State (1972), 154 Ind.App. 81, 289 N.E.2d 141, for the bailiff t......
-
Johnson v. State
...judge's comments about the 'good time' statute is Deming v. State (1956),235 Ind. 282, 133 N.E.2d 51. Deming, and also Turner v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 91, 257 N.E.2d 825, reverse convictions because a bailiff made improper comments to the jury. Specifically, in Deming, a juror asked the ba......