Can a court bailiff refuse to accept a jury's request for a transcript of testimony?

In Smith v. Shankman , supra , 208 Cal.App.2d 177, 25 Cal.Rptr. 195, the jury asked a court bailiff during deliberations for the transcript of the defendant's testimony. ( Id. at p. 181, 25 Cal.Rptr. 195.) The bailiff informed them they could not have it. ( Ibid. ) This was error because the bailiff was not permitted to communicate with the jurors on a matter other than to determine whether they had reached a verdict. ( Id. at p. 184, 25 Cal.Rptr. 195.) Relevant here is the court's discussion of prejudice. "Although it is true," the court explained, "that the bailiff was technically correct in instructing the jurors that the written transcript itself could not be given to them, it does not follow that his misconduct was of no consequence. While the jury's action did not constitute in so many words a request for a reading of some portion of the transcript, such action can reasonably be interpreted only as such a request.... [Citation.] Had the bailiff properly deferred action on the jury's request until the trial judge had returned ..., the jury could then have been brought into open court ... and the judge could have inquired whether they desired to have portions of the relevant testimony reread. As a result of the bailiff s failure to follow this procedure, the jury's request for the transcript was denied in such a manner as to indicate that there was no alternative method by which they could review testimony which they obviously considered important." ( Ibid. ) If, however, the court had been informed of the request and "offered to have the relevant testimony reread to the jury, it is entirely possible, as a practical matter, that its verdict might have been affected." ( Id. at p. 185, 25 Cal.Rptr. 195.) Smith s reasoning was adopted and applied under similar facts in a criminal case in York , supra , 272 Cal.App.2d at pages 465466, 77 Cal.Rptr. 441.