stating that “[a]s a general rule, a trial court shall deliver to the jury a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case; it should not express any opinion as to the weight of the evidence, sum up the testimony, discuss the facts, or use any argument in its charge calculated to arouse the sympathy or excite the passions of the jury”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[a]s a general rule, a trial court shall deliver to the jury a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case; it should not express any opinion as to the weight of the evidence, sum up the testimony, discuss the facts, or use any argument in its charge calculated to arouse the sympathy or excite the passions of the jury”
- determining that instruction to jury that State may introduce evidence “that defendant was offered and refused a breath test” and that jury could consider defendant’s refusal to provide breath sample when “deciding the question of guilt or innocence” constituted “an improper comment on the weight of the evidence”
- concluding that although evidence of a person’s refusal to submit to a breath test may be introduced at trial because it tends to show a consciousness of guilt, a jury is not authorized “to presume a consciousness of guilt from the refusal to take a breath test”
- explaining that outside of certain statutorily-recognized exceptions, “a trial court should avoid any allusion in the jury charge to a particular fact in evidence, as the jury might construe this as judicial endorsement or imprimatur”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
While a trial court should use language in the jury charge that tracks the language of the statute, it should not, by language in the charge, appear to accentuate the importance of a piece of evidence. That is what happened here.
The first paragraph of the charge properly tracked the language of the statute as to the admission of the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test. If the charge had stopped there, there would have been no issue for us to address, but the next two paragraphs drew attention to the refusal and were likely to have enhanced the apparent importance of it as evidence of guilt. The trial court attempted to be even-handed in its discussion, but the very fact of discussion of this piece of evidence and lack of discussion about other evidence raised a high probability that the discussion affected the weight given to that piece of evidence by the jury.
I join the opinion of the Court.