 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson v. State12/30/2003
o physical comforts and communication dealing with any aspect of case). We do not address whether responding to housekeeping questions outside a defendant's presence is error. See State v. Hendry II, 636 N.W.2d 158, 165 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding, as matter of law, trial court did not err in failing to contact attorneys when jury asked housekeeping question that court did not answer), review denied (Minn. Jan. 29, 2002).
When a defendant is wrongly denied the right to be present at a stage of trial, a new trial is required unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Sessions, 621 N.W.2d at 756. In considering whether the trial court's communication with the jury is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we must be mindful of a judge's position in the eyes of the jury."An act, a sentence, or a word from the presiding judge may exert a controlling influence on the verdict." State v. Mims, 306 Minn. 159, 163, 235 N.W.2d 381, 386 (1975) (quotations omitted).
Here, we conclude that the trial court responded to questions from the jury on substantive matters. Although it appears the trial court intended to provide neutral, non-substantive responses, the responses are too easily interpreted as providing additional instructions. The response to"keep working" could well be interpreted to mean that the jury must reach a verdict. See Kelley, 517 N.W.2d at 909-10 (concluding while court's communications were not coercive on their face, they did not provide careful description of jury obligations, which the court approved in State v. Martin, 297 Minn. 359, 211 N.W.2d 765 (1973)). And the response that access to testimony is"unworkable" may well imply that the jury would not be entitled to have any testimony reread. See State v. Spaulding, 296 N.W.2d 870, 878 (Minn. 1980) (concluding trial court's refusal to reread defendant's testimony at jury's request was prejudicial error in close case).
A trial court's response to a deliberating jury's questions regarding substantive matters provides far too great a possibility the jury will understand the response as an additional instruction. When the communication occurs outside the presence of the defendant and his or her attorney, the defendant is deprived of essential knowledge and stripped of his opportunity for input. See Kelley, 517 N.W.2d at 910 (concluding defendant was likely prejudiced by judge-jury communications outside his or his attorney's presence because his attorney was not made aware the jury was deadlocked and"had no chance to suggest a suitable course of action"). We conclude the trial court's response to questions regarding substantive matters is reversible error.
Because we conclude a new trial is required in this case, we do not address Peterson's argument that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. We note, however, this claim generally should be brought before the district court in a post conviction proceeding.
DECISION
The trial court erred when it responded to the jury's questions regarding substantive matters outside Peterson's presence or his waiver of his right to be present. We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|