Case Name: Freddie R. PATTERSON, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-12-17
Citations: 725 So. 2d 386
Docket Number: No. 97-4452
Parties: Freddie R. PATTERSON, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 725
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Freddie R. PATTERSON, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-4452
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 17, 1998.
Steven L. Seliger of Garcia and Seliger, Quincy, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant complains that the trial court erred in permitting individual jurors to ask questions of witnesses. We disagree. The supreme court has approved juror questioning of witnesses so long as the trial court controls the procedure. Watson v. State, 651 So.2d 1159 (Fla.1994). See also, Tanner v. State, 724 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bradford v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2577, 722 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pierre v. State, 601 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Scheel v. State, 350 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Moreover, the overwhelming majority of state and federal jurisdictions has approved such a procedure. See Commonwealth v. Urena, 417 Mass. 692, 632 N.E.2d 1200, 1203 n. 2 (Mass.1994) (listing courts that have approved the practice). But see Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (en banc); State v. Zima, 237 Neb. 952, 468 N.W.2d 377 (Neb.1991).
Because the court below carefully screened the written questions, considered the parties' objections outside the jury's hearing, and asked only three questions, none of which appellant has contended were impermissible or prejudicial, appellant's convictions are
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
MINER, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH OPINION.