Smith v. McMillen

19 Ind. 391
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 19 Ind. 391 (Smith v. McMillen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. McMillen, 19 Ind. 391 (Ind. 1862).

Opinion

Perkins, J.

In this case the Circuit Court permitted the written instructions given upon the trial to be sent to the jury, in the absence and without the consent of one of the parties, and after the jury had been, for a long time, in deliberation upon the case.

The principle is, that the jury shall take the law from the Court. The mode in which the Court communicates with the jury is by addressing them in open Court. The jury take the law from the Court through the ear. By so doing, they generally stand upon equality, because none but men with hearing ears are competent jurors. In the jury-room, then, each depends upon his own recollection of the instructions, and upon the impression they made upon him for their meaning, their construction; and, thus standing upon an equality, if they differ, they should come into Court, and, in presence of the parties, let the Court be the interpreter of its own instructions. But if, instead of this being done, the Court sends the written instructions to the jury, inasmuch as jurors are^not upon equality in their ability to read and interpret writing, it puts it in the power of sharp ones on the jury to read, and become the interpreters for the Court, and mislead their less skillful fellow-jurors. We think instructions should not be sent to the jury-room, without consent of both parties.

Stone and Brouse, for the appellant.

Per Curiam.

The judgment ia reversed, with costs. Cause remanded for new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Armstead v. State
538 N.E.2d 943 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1989)
Haynes v. State
431 N.E.2d 83 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1982)
Purdy v. State
369 N.E.2d 633 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1977)
Snelling v. State
337 N.E.2d 829 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1975)
Kimmons v. State
178 So. 2d 608 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Day v. General Petroleum Corp.
89 P.2d 718 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Blacketer v. House
67 Ind. 414 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Nichols v. State ex rel. Clark
65 Ind. 512 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Ind. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mcmillen-ind-1862.