Opinion ID: 1529733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was it reversible error for the trial court to permit a juror to question the defendant?

Text: Whereas appellant did not take the witness stand during the guilt phase of the trial, he did so during the penalty phase. Following his direct examination, a juror questioned him as follows: Juror No. 5: I have a question. He stated that he knew, he and this Red had been friends for sometime. Where did this Red live [?] He would had to visit or something. Where did this Red live? Where did he hangout at? Why didn't any of your friends know about you and Red and since you ... The Court: That is about five questions there. I'll allow the questions. But there was about four there. Witness [Appellant]: Um, I would say this much. He stays on Hill Street. I won't say what part or what but he stays on Hill Street. Juror No. 5: You are asking for your life and nobody can find Red and you refuse. Why do you refuse to tell his address so he can be found to save you probably? Witness: I ... Mr. Radolovich: May we approach the bench. Appellant argues that the questions of the juror show a predisposition against him. He argues that the trial court should have screened the questions prior to permitting them to be asked. He argues that the last question inflamed the jury. In addressing this issue, we are mindful of the fact that appellant did not testify at the guilt phase, and we are mindful that the jury found him guilty of robbery and murder. The challenged questions occurred during the sentencing phase of the trial. It is proper for jurors to ask questions of witnesses so long as they are pertinent and competent. Miller v. Commonwealth, 188 Ky. 435, 222 S.W. 96 (1920). The rationale is that questions (and answers thereto) are encouraged in the interest of justice and to enhance the understanding of the facts and issues in a case. In Smith v. Commonwealth, 140 Ky. 599, 131 S.W. 499 (1910), a juror was permitted to ask a defendant why he was carrying a pistol at the time he shot and killed the victim. We said that the questions, were both pertinent and proper for the purpose of developing and showing that in carrying the pistol . . . [the defendant] did so with the expectation that he might and would meet the deceased, and, if he did, shoot him. Id. at 501. What was the purpose of the question? Certainly it was to determine if Red really existed, or if he was only a phantom created by appellant to absolve him of the crime. It is a question that probably would have been extensively discussed in the jury room. It is a legitimate question. A prosecutor may properly comment on the defendant's failure to introduce witnesses on a defensive matter. Francis v. Commonwealth, 311 Ky. 318, 224 S.W.2d 163 (1949). The gravamen of the question is the credibility of the witness. We find no error here. Appellant also points out that Kentucky has no procedure for questioning by a juror, e.g., some courts require questions to be submitted in writing. We believe that any such procedure is not required. The jury  of all people  has the right to have questions  proper questions  answered. Such can only further their duty, their purpose, their raison d'etre, to search out the truth. We believe that the presiding judge can protect the rights of all parties by simply ruling on the competency of the questions, in the identical manner that he does in the course of the trial.