Court Opinion

ID: 9527320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:29:37.121962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:43.121970
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTPI, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result of this decision. I do not think the trial court should be reversed for permitting jurors to put more than 100 questions to witnesses during the trial when no objection is made by either counsel.
I look with disfavor on frequent questioning by the jury. While, on rare occasions, a question by a juror may serve to clear up some obscurity, misunderstanding, or uncertainty, it may place counsel (who may wish to object to a question) in a position of apprehension that his objection may prejudice his case with the jury.
Nevertheless, I consider it the duty of counsel either to object to the precise question (which he feels is objectionable), or, if he does not want to put himself in this position, to make known to the court at a side-bar out of the presence of the jury, or at a recess, and on the record, that he does object to a question or frequent questions by the jury. Unless counsel is required to take some affirmative step to make his objection known to the court, it has no way to know if either counsel has any objection to a specific question put by a juror, or to the frequency of questioning by jurors and counsel could speculate on the verdict and if adverse, insist on this ground as error. I do not believe there should be any duty on the part of the trial court sua sponte to stop occasional questioning by the jury.
LAWSON, and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
On Rehearing