From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Robin

Supreme Court of Arizona
Dec 17, 1975
112 Ariz. 467 (Ariz. 1975)

Summary

In Robin, the judge responded to questions of fact from the jury by answering from his notes and his recollection of testimony.

Summary of this case from State v. Mata

Opinion

No. 3009.

December 17, 1975.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Maricopa County Cause No. CR-80508, C. Kimball Rose, J.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty. by Joseph P. Shaw, and Lyle O. Reinsch, Deputy County Attys., Phoenix, for appellee.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.


Robert Gonzales Robin was found guilty of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He now appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2, § 24 and Article 6, § 5 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.21.

We need only discuss one issue presented on appeal: whether it was error for the trial judge to have communicated with the jury in the absence of the defendant and counsel. We find that it was.

The jury sent the judge questions which dealt with issues of fact and the judge answered from his notes and his recollection of the relevant testimony. It is improper for a trial judge in a criminal case to communicate with the jurors after they have retired to deliberate unless the defendant and counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present. State v. Werring, 111 Ariz. 68, 523 P.2d 499 (1974); State v. Burnetts, 80 Ariz. 208, 295 P.2d 377 (1956). Where the communication concerns the case and particularly issues of fact, the defendant is not required to show actual prejudice. State v. Burnetts, supra.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

CAMERON, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and SANDRA D. O'CONNOR, Superior Court Judge, Maricopa County, and WILLIAM W. NABOURS, Superior Court Judge, Yuma County, concur.

Note: Justice LOCKWOOD, retired, and Justice HOLOHAN did not participate in the determination of this matter. SANDRA D. O'CONNOR, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, and WILLIAM W. NABOURS, Judge of the Superior Court of Yuma County, sat in their stead.


Summaries of

State v. Robin

Supreme Court of Arizona
Dec 17, 1975
112 Ariz. 467 (Ariz. 1975)

In Robin, the judge responded to questions of fact from the jury by answering from his notes and his recollection of testimony.

Summary of this case from State v. Mata

In Robin the jury sent the judge questions of fact, upon which he commented from his notes and recollection of relevant testimony.

Summary of this case from State v. Lawrence

In Robin, the judge responded to questions of fact from the jury by answering from his notes and his recollection of testimony.

Summary of this case from State v. Hilliard

In State v. Robin, 112 Ariz. 467, 543 P.2d 779 (1975), the jury, after retiring to deliberate, sent the judge questions which dealt with issues of fact.

Summary of this case from State v. Hilliard

In Robin, supra, the jury sent questions to the judge which dealt with issues of fact and the judge answered from his notes and his recollection of the relevant testimony.

Summary of this case from State v. Davis
Case details for

State v. Robin

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert Gonzales ROBIN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: Dec 17, 1975

Citations

112 Ariz. 467 (Ariz. 1975)
543 P.2d 779

Citing Cases

State v. Whitley

However, unlike Rule 19.2 that applies in the present case, there are situations when the violation of the…

State v. Verdugo

Robert Robin, a codefendant with appellant, was tried separately, found guilty of first-degree murder and…