Case Name: PEOPLE v. ROSS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1989-08-02
Citations: 181 Mich. App. 89
Docket Number: Docket No. 101834
Parties: PEOPLE v ROSS
Judges: Before: McDonald, P.J., and Sullivan and Neff, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 181
Pages: 89–94

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v ROSS
Docket No. 101834.
Submitted March 7, 1989, at Detroit.
Decided August 2, 1989.
Leave to appeal denied, 433 Mich 905.
Kenneth L. Ross was convicted of two counts of felonious assault following a jury trial in the Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit. The trial court, Michael J. Talbot, J., sentenced defendant to three years probation. Defendant appealed contending that he was denied a fair trial as a result of numerous comments and questions by the trial judge during the trial.
The Court of Appeals held:
The trial judge’s conduct seriously undermined the effectiveness of the defense and constituted an abandonment of his mantle of judicial impartiality thereby denying defendant a fair trial. The jury may have been unduly influenced by the judge’s conduct. The trial judge’s questioning of defendant prejudiced him and denied him a fair trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Sullivan, J., dissented. He would find that the trial judge did not abuse defense counsel to the extent that a new trial is warranted and that the judge’s conduct did not influence the jury to the detriment of the defendant. He would find that defendant had a fair trial.
1. Criminal Law — Trial — Treatment of Counsel.
A defendant has a right to be represented by an attorney who is treated with the consideration due an officer of the court.
2. Criminal Law — Trial — Treatment of Counsel — Appeal.
A trial court’s unfair criticism of defense counsel in front of the jury is always improper, but reversal is necessary only where such conduct denies the defendant a fair and impartial trial by unduly influencing the jury.
3. Criminal Law — Trial — Witnesses — Questioning by Judge.
A trial judge may question witnesses to clarify information or to elicit additional relevant information but must avoid any invasion of the prosecutor’s role and exercise caution so that his questions will not be intimidating, argumentative, prejudicial, unfair or partial.
References
Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 88, 106, 113, 116.
See the Index to Annotations under Attorney or Assistance of Attorney; Credibility of Witnesses; Fair and Impartial Trial; Judges.
4. Criminal Law — Trial — Witnesses — Questioning by Judge.
The test for whether a new trial should be ordered because of the trial court’s comments and questions directed to a witness is whether the questions and comments may well have unjustifiably aroused suspicion in the mind of the jury as to the witness’ credibility and whether partiality quite possibly could have influenced the jury to the detriment of the defendant’s case.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, John D. O’Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Criminal Division, Research, Training and Appeals, and Janet A. Napp, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Norris J. Thomas, Jr., and Anne Yantus), for defendant on appeal.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Sullivan and Neff, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA 28.277. Defendant was sentenced to three years probation. Defendant now appeals as of right and we reverse.
Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by numerous comments and questions by the trial judge. Defendant complains of several instances where the trial judge belittled defense counsel and called into question his skills and abilities. Defendant also contends that the manner and scope of the trial court's examination of witnesses, particularly its questioning of defendant concerning his intoxication and memory of the evening in question, exhibited the court's partiality against defendant and his attorney. We agree with defendant that the trial judge's conduct seriously undermined the effectiveness of the defense and constituted an abandonment of his mantle of judicial impartiality which denied defendant a fair trial.
A defendant has a right to be represented by an attorney who is treated with the consideration due an officer of the court. Belittling observations aimed at defense counsel are necessarily injurious to the one he represents. Trial judges who berate, scold, and demean an attorney, so as to hold him up to contempt in the eyes of the jury, destroy the balance of impartiality necessary for a fair hearing. People v Anderson, 166 Mich App 455, 461-462; 421 NW2d 200 (1988), lv den 432 Mich 858 (1989). Although unfair criticism of defense counsel in front of the jury is always improper, reversal is necessary only where the court's conduct denied the defendant a fair and impartial trial by unduly influencing the jury. Anderson, supra. We believe that the trial judge's conduct here destroyed the balance of impartiality and unduly influenced the jury.
We also believe that the trial judge's questioning of defendant prejudiced him and denied him a fair trial. A trial judge may question witnesses to clarify information or to elicit additional relevant information. The trial court's discretion in questioning witnesses, however, is not unlimited. The trial judge must avoid any invasion of the prosecutor's role and must exercise caution so that his questions will not be intimidating, argumentative, prejudicial, unfair, or partial. People v Sterling, 154 Mich App 223, 228; 397 NW2d 182 (1986). The test for whether a new trial should be ordered is whether the judge's questions and comments may
well have unjustifiably aroused suspicion in the mind of the jury as to a witness' credibility and whether partiality quite possibly could have influenced the jury to the detriment of the defendant's case. Sterling, supra.
We find that the following exchange between defendant and the trial court was improper because the trial court's comments may well have unjustifiably aroused suspicion in the mind of the jury as to defendant's credibility:
The Court: Did you know what you were doing?
The Defendant: No I didn't.
The Court: That night you didn't know what you were doing?
The Defendant: I don't have that clear of recollection of what I was doing.
The Court: At what point, sir, is it that you don't have a recollection of what you were doing?
The Defendant: When I got in my car and I started to leave.
The Court: Oh, I see. Before that everything is clear in your mind? You knew what you were doing, and you know what happened to you?
The Defendant: I knew I needed to run away from Mr. Brown because he seemed like he really wanted to persist in . . .
The Court: Did you do anything in an intoxicated state? Do you think you did anything intoxicated?
The Defendant: I don't understand.
The Court: Oh. Plain English. Do you think you did anything wrong — use that word — while intoxicated?
The Defendant: No I didn't.
The Court: All right.
We are particularly sensitive to the trial judge's conduct here because there was a one-on-one credibility contest between defendant and the victim, and the credibility of the witnesses may well have been a very close issue for the jury. The trial judge's conduct towards defense counsel and his questioning of defendant could easily have influenced the jury to the detriment of defendant's case.
In light of our resolution of this case, we need not address defendant's remaining argument.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.