Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered whether a secret written communication between the trial judge and jury after deliberations required a new trial. The court held that the communication had to be treated as an instruction on law and that, because its substance was undisclosed, the defendant was denied the right to evaluate or challenge it. The court sustained the defendant’s exceptions and ordered a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial judge's secret written communication with the jury during deliberations required a new trial when the substance of the communication was not disclosed to the parties or preserved in the record.
- Whether St. 1913, c. 716, § 1, which precluded a new trial for harmless errors concerning pleading or procedure, applied to the undisclosed jury instruction.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's requested rulings concerning the plaintiff's alleged duty to disclose partnership affairs.
Holdings
- A secret written instruction or communication from the judge to the jury after deliberations have begun, made outside open court and without the knowledge of counsel, requires the verdict to be set aside when the substance of the communication is undisclosed and therefore cannot be evaluated for harmlessness.
- The statutory harmless-error provision for matters of pleading or procedure does not encompass secret instructions concerning the law given to the jury.
- The trial judge properly refused the defendant's requested instructions concerning a general duty of the surviving partner to disclose partnership affairs because those requests were not germane to the actual factual issue submitted to the jury.
Key quotations
“that no communication whatever ought to take place between the judge and the jury, after the cause has been committed to them by the charge of the judge, unless in open court, and, where practicable, in the presence of the counsel in the cause.” (at 366-367)
“The giving of secret instructions as to the law is not comprehended within the words "pleading or procedure."” (at 370)
“Correct instructions upon matters of law are of the very substance of jury trial at common law.” (at 370)
“Secret instructions or clandestine communications, no matter if given with the best of intentions, contravene this fundamental and essential conception of common law trial by jury.” (at 371)
Factual background
The plaintiff and the defendant's deceased husband had been partners in a coal business. After the husband's death, the defendant, acting as administratrix and individually, transferred the estate's interest in the partnership to the plaintiff for $40,000, with the plaintiff assuming the partnership's debts and obligations. Before the sale, the plaintiff had advanced the defendant $720 and coal worth $60.75, and the jury had to determine whether the parties intended the sale-related transactions to extinguish the defendant's liability for those items. During deliberations, the jury sent a written question to the judge, who answered it in writing outside open court; neither the question nor the answer was disclosed.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sued to collect amounts allegedly owed for advances of money and coal supplied to the defendant. The jury was instructed to decide whether the parties intended to extinguish the defendant's liability through transactions involving the sale of a partnership interest. After the jury retired, the judge answered a written jury question in writing outside open court and without counsel's knowledge. The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, and the defendant brought exceptions.
Remand instructions
The verdict must be set aside and a new trial granted.