Whiting v. State
| Decision Date | 22 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 45S00-8606-CR-588,45S00-8606-CR-588 |
| Citation | 516 N.E.2d 1067 |
| Parties | Melvin WHITING, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Scott King, Crown Point, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is a direct appeal following a jury verdict finding appellant guilty of murder. The trial court sentenced him to forty (40) years imprisonment.
Appellant raises as his sole issue an allegation that two jurors were sleeping during the closing argument for the defense, resulting in a violation of his right to a fair trial.
At the sentencing hearing, when asked by the court if he had anything to say, appellant replied that a certain State's witness was lying and that "[a]lso a juror was sleeping during the trial." In response to a question from the trial judge as to whether or not he had informed his lawyer that a juror was sleeping, appellant replied affirmatively. His lawyer added that he had observed two jurors who appeared to have been "more or less nodding" but that he wasn't sure if they were asleep. He also stated that he made reference to this on his jury diagram but did not inform the trial court of his observations. Further, attached to the motion to correct error is an affidavit executed by trial counsel to the effect that two jurors were asleep during final argument and that he noted this fact on his juror's seating diagram.
Appellant urges that as a result of the allegedly sleeping jurors he was denied his statutory right to be tried by twelve jurors and his State constitutional right to be heard by his counsel.
It is recognized that juror misconduct can constitute the basis for a valid claim that the right to a fair jury trial has been denied. However, a party has the duty and responsibility, upon discovery of possible juror misconduct, to formally raise the issue with the presiding court in a timely manner. Merry v. State (1975), 166 Ind.App. 199, 335 N.E.2d 249. "The defendant may not observe an error in the trial, make no objection, and yet claim such error as reason for reversal." Id. 335 N.E.2d at 267. The general rule subject to fundamental error exceptions is that when a party has a fair opportunity to object and raise an issue at trial, and does not, the right to later assert the issue is relinquished.
Appellant acknowledges that while both he and his attorney were aware of the jurors' behavior and immediately concerned about it, neither brought this to the attention of the court. The trial court was therefore not apprised of the suspect behavior and was therefore not placed in a position to make any factual determination on the record concerning it. There was also no chance for the court to take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matheney v. Anderson
...State, 518 N.E.2d 807 (Ind.1988); Jackson v. State, 518 N.E.2d 787 (Ind.1988); Dowery v. State, 516 N.E.2d 67 (Ind.1987); Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1067 (Ind.1987); Johnson v. State, 515 N.E.2d 536 (Ind.1987); Daniels v. State, 515 N.E.2d 530 (Ind.1987); Tarver v. State, 513 N.E.2d 176 (......
-
State v. Prince
...A juror's “mere falling asleep for a short time ... does not of itself constitute a sufficient cause for a new trial.” Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1067, 1068 (Ind.1987) (quotation omitted). Nor is reversal required when, as here, no evidence shows that the sleeping juror “missed large port......
-
State v. Yamada, 26506.
...of counsel for the defendant in a criminal cause, does not of itself constitute a sufficient cause for a new trial." Whiting v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1067, 1068 (Ind.1987) (citation omitted); see also U.S. v. Springfield, 829 F.2d 860, 864 (9th Cir.1987) (finding no prejudice where a juror miss......
-
Steward v. State
...upon discovery of possible juror misconduct, to formally raise the issue with the presiding court in a timely manner." Whiting v. State (1987), Ind., 516 N.E.2d 1067, 1067. "The defendant may not observe an error in the trial, make no objection, and yet claim such error as reason for revers......