The judge then said:
You are bound by these facts for purposes of this case. So all the other facts you’ll be the judge of the facts.
A criminal conviction must rest on a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter how compelling the evidence, a judge may not direct a verdict against a defendant in a criminal case.
Here, the judge used a poor choice of words in instructing the jurors that they were “bound” by the stipulated facts. The instruction was incorrect and misleading. A stipulation of fact is nothing more than evidence that is uncontroverted. However, a jury is free to reject any evidence, including that which is uncontroverted. Therefore, in a criminal case, the jury is not bound by stipulated facts.
Held: Despite the judge’s misstatement, a reversal is not warranted. The statement does not constitute directing a verdict. In other instructions, the judge charged the jury that it was required to find every element of every charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict defendant, that the burden never shifts to the defendant, and that the state has the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, after commencing deliberations, the jury sent the following question to the judge, “if the defendant is found guilty of charge 2, does the jury have the right to vote not guilty on charges 3 and 4, given the statements made in [the stipulation]?” In answering the question, the judge reiterated:
I told you there are five charges or offenses or counts in this Indictment, and they are separate charges, separate offenses by separate counts of the Indictment. The defendant is entitled to have his guilt or innocence separately considered on each count by the evidence, which is relevant and material to that particular charge based on the law as I stated that law to be to you in my charge.
