Wilson v. Hartley, 21
| Citation | 112 N.W.2d 567,365 Mich. 188 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
| Parties | Lace C. WILSON, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Pearl W. HARTLEY, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
George L. Ginger, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.
Michael J. Landers, Detroit, for defendant and appellee.
Before the Entire Bench, except SMITH, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a jury verdict of no cause for action. The case arose out of a collision at the intersection of 16 Mile and John R. roads in the city of Troy, Oakland county, on January 10, 1957, in which plaintiff was injured.
On the second day of the jury deliberations the foreman sent a written note to the trial judge inquiring as to what form was to be used in rendering the verdict. The judge, who was in the process of trying another case, gave certain oral instructions to the clerk of the court to give to the jury in response to the inquiry.
The bailiff and the clerk entered the jury room together and the clerk instructed the jury in the presence of the bailiff. The bailiff testified he did not remember exactly what was said in the jury room. He further stated the instructions given to the jury were not in writing and no record was made of what was said or the contents of the foreman's note
The clerk testified he gave the following instructions to the jury at the request of the trial judge:
Plaintiff, on appeal, contends this constituted prejudicial error requiring a reversal of the judgment.
Defendant contends that even if it were error, it would not be prejudicial error.
Trial judges have a responsibility to communicate to the jury directly in open court and in the presence of, or after notice to, the parties or their counsel. The secrecy of the deliberations of the jury is a responsibility of the trial judge. The question of communications, either oral or written, from third parties to the jurors in the jury room has been the subject of several appeals to this Court in the last year. This indicates the importance of calling to the attention of the entire trial bench their duty to preserve the secrecy of the jury deliberations.
The communication here in question and the answer thereto did not pertain to any phase of the case bearing upon plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushing v. Wayne County
...given to the jury after the commencement of deliberations, other than in open court in the presence of counsel. In Wilson v. Hartley, 365 Mich. 188, 189, 112 N.W.2d 567 (1961), the judge, through his clerk, instructed the jury ex parte as to the proper form to be used in rendering its verdi......
-
People v. France
...23 N.W. 211 (1885). 20 In recent years, this Court has been asked to address the issue on numerous occasions. In Wilson v. Hartley, 365 Mich. 188, 190, 112 N.W.2d 567 (1961), a bailiff and a clerk entered the jury room on the second day of deliberations and delivered an oral message from th......
-
People v. Caddell
...the deliberations of the jury is a responsibility of the trial judge.") (quotation marks and citation omitted); Wilson v. Hartley , 365 Mich. 188, 190, 112 N.W.2d 567 (1961) (same). For these reasons, courts must always be cautious not to "intrude on the secrecy of the jury's deliberations.......
-
Mason v. Lovins
...of communication, however innocuous, with the jury, without regard to the circumstances, has not been adopted. In Wilson v. Hartley (1961), 365 Mich. 188, 112 N.W.2d 567, the Court ruled that the transmittal of a communication relating to the form of the verdict from the judge to the jury i......