Opinion ID: 2183480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Court Involvement in Adversarial Process

Text: Fox argues that the trial court erroneously participated in the adversarial process. He claims that the judge's questions to one State witness revealed a personal interest in disclosing to the jury a prior relationship between the appellant and co-defendant. After the prosecutor and defense counsel had finished questioning co-defendant Day, the court summoned counsel for a bench conference. The judge requested that the prosecutor ask Day whether he had been to Cass County prior to April 1983, and, if so, why he had come. The prosecutor responded that he purposely refrained from that line of questioning because it might delve into why Day and appellant were in prison. However, the prosecutor believed that such questions would aid the jury because otherwise it would be left hanging as to why he came here and [sic] see Ralph Fox and they're going to want to ask why. Defense counsel's objection was two-fold: the subject of the questioning would be prior relationships and the prosecutor should decide what questions to ask the witness, not the court. After the bench conference, the judge asked Day: Q. Mr. Day, had you ever been in Cass County before April of 1983? A. No, sir. Q. When you came to Cass County, you testified you went to Ralph Fox's home or you met with Ralph Fox. Now I just want you to just answer this yes or no. Did you know Ralph Fox before April of 1983? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you know anyone else in Cass County before April of 1983? You can just answer that yes or no. A. Yes. The trial judge may not assume an adversarial role in the proceedings but may intervene in the fact-finding process and question witnesses in order to promote clarity or dispel obscurity. Altman v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 716. The purpose of the judge's discretionary power to question witnesses is to allow the court to develop the truth or present facts which may have been overlooked by the parties. Thomas v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 271, 230 N.E.2d 303; Edmonds v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 332, 215 N.E.2d 547. The judge has not abused this discretion when the intervention is conducted in an impartial manner and the defendant is not prejudiced. Swift v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 337, 264 N.E.2d 317. Appellant's claim is without merit. The judge intervened merely to complete the factual background and did so in an impartial, non-prejudicial manner. Therefore, his actions did not constitute an abuse of discretion.