Benton v. StateBenton v. State
Following a jury trial, Donnie Benton appeals his conviction for stalking, contending that the conviction must be reversed because the jury was not sworn. Because the record does not affirmatively show that the jury was not sworn, we find no reversible error.
In support of his contention, Benton notes that the record does not reflect whether the jury was sworn pursuant to
Here, Benton correctly points out that the record fails to show whether the jury was sworn. However, “[t]he courts of this State have consistently held that the [mere] failure of the record to reflect whether the jury is sworn does not [itself] constitute reversible error.”
Stokes v. State.
3
An appellant bears the burden of showing error affirmatively by the record,
Williams v.
State,
4
and “[w]here the transcript does not fully disclose what transpired at trial, it is the duty of the complaining party to have the record completed pursuant to
“The presumption exists that the judge discharged all his duties, including the swearing of the jury.”
Bohin v. State.
7
Thus, where the transcript does not reveal whether the jury oath was administered, this gap must be corrected by a hearing at the trial court, pursuant to
As the record now before us fails to affirmatively reflect that the oath was not administered to the jury, we discern no reversible error. See
Stokes v. State,
supra,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Spencer v. State,
Grant v. State,
Stokes v. State,
Williams v. State,
Morrison v. State,
Montford v. State,
Bohin v. State,
Keller v. State,
Copeland v. State,