Opinion
No. 103788.
October 18, 1996.
Leave to Appeal Denied October 18, 1996:
Court of Appeals No. 160270.
I would grant leave to appeal.
The trial court's statements at the beginning of voir dire reasonably could have been understood by jurors who decided this case as completely foreclosing any rereading of testimony. The instructions given by the court before jury deliberations did nothing to correct that impression. As in People v Henry Smith, 396 Mich. 109 (1976), conjecture about what actually went on in the jury room should not be the basis for determining whether the error was harmless. Compare People v Rodriguez, 103 Mich. App. 161 (1981), rev'd 411 Mich. 872 (1981). The circumstance here is even more compelling than the situation in Henry Smith because jurors did not readily reach a verdict in this case, and were obliged to resolve conflicts in the testimony of key witnesses without the benefit of a rereading of the testimony.
I would grant leave to appeal.