DocketNumber: No. 02AP-487 (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Judges: PETREE, P.J.
Filed Date: 4/15/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} "The trial court committed plain error by permitting members of the jury to submit questions to the court for review and submission to the [witness]."
{¶ 3} Defendant asserts that the trial court's practice of allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses constituted per se prejudicial error. We disagree.
{¶ 4} After the examination of each witness, the court permitted the jurors to submit written questions to the witness. The trial judge and counsel reviewed the questions outside the jury's presence. If the court determined that the question was proper, it questioned the witness accordingly. Defendant objected to a few of the submitted questions; those questions were not submitted to the witness. After each question was posed, counsel was given the opportunity to re-examine the witness. In reliance on State v. Gilden (2001),
{¶ 5} At the outset, we note that defendant did not object to the practice of permitting the jurors to ask questions of the witnesses. Accordingly, we must review defendant's assignment of error under the plain error standard. Crim.R. 52(B) provides that a reviewing court may consider errors which affect substantial rights even though they were not brought to the attention of the trial court. An error qualifies as plain error only if it is obvious, and but for the error, the outcome of the trial would clearly have been otherwise. State v. Yarbrough (2002),
{¶ 6} This court addressed the precise issue raised herein in State v. Fisher (Dec. 20, 2001), Franklin App. No. 01AP-614, certification of conflict granted (2002),
{¶ 7} Defense counsel did not object to any of the questions actually asked by the jury, and, as we have already noted, the trial court, exercising its discretion, eliminated the questions to which defense counsel objected. Defendant has not pointed to any specific questions asked by a juror as prejudicial, nor has he argued that the judge abused her discretion in allowing the practice. Based upon our own review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion or prejudice to defendant, and, accordingly, defendant's assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, defendant's assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BROWN and LAZARUS, JJ., concur.