Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1984-04-19
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2015
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1Harmon appeals from a final judgment adjudicating him guilty of attempted robbery.1 The only issue of substance is whether the trial judge erred in sending to the jury room, in response to the jury’s request for further instructions, a set of standard jury instructions, which the judge had apparently read to them in court. The inapplicable parts of the instructions were blackened-out and the judge sent along a note which said: “Hopefully, the attached instructions will be of assistance. Ignore the blackened portions completely!” Defense counsel objected to this procedure because the print of the inapplicable part of the instructions could be read through the black marks.
¶2This procedure is risky at best, because prejudicial matter might conceivably be sent to the jury. However, appellant has failed to point out any damaging or prejudicial material legible beneath the blackened-out portions of these instructions.2 Therefore, we
