 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medina v. People6/27/2005
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED AND CASES REMANDED
EN BANC
JUSTICE COATS concurs in the judgment only.
JUSTICE KOURLIS does not participate.
In this consolidated opinion, we review the propriety of jury questioning in Colorado. The court of appeals held that juror questioning in these two cases did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial and impartial jury and, that under the terms of the Colorado Jury Reform Pilot Project, the defendants were not prejudiced by the questions posed by the jurors. People v. Medina, No. 02CA0202, slip op. at 6-7 (Colo. App. Feb. 5, 2004) (not selected for official publication); People v. Moses, No. 02CA0925, slip op. at 7-8 (Colo. App. Apr. 15, 2004) (not selected for official publication).
We hold that juror questioning of witnesses does not create a per se violation of a defendant's right to a fair trial. When the applicable rules of law and evidence are applied and after consulting with counsel, the decision of whether to ask a juror's question is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Like other instances where a trial court errs in admitting otherwise inadmissible evidence, improper juror questions which are asked by the court will be reviewed for harmless error. We also hold that while it was error to ask one of the juror's questions in Medina's case, the impact of the evidence adduced from the question was harmless. And, we hold that in Moses's case, no error occurred despite the possibility that the jury overheard a bench conference to discuss the admissibility of a juror's question and where prejudicial statements were not made. Hence, we affirm the court of appeals and remand these cases to that court to return them to the trial court for action consistent with this opinion.
I. Facts and Proceedings Below
These two cases raise questions about the validity of allowing jurors to ask witnesses questions during a criminal trial. In September of 2000, Chief Justice Mary J. Mullarkey authorized a pilot project to study the effects of permitting jurors to submit written questions to witnesses during certain criminal trials. The Colorado Jury Reform Pilot Project Subcommittee provided a list of policies and procedures that the district court was to follow when jurors asked questions. Pursuant to these polices, jurors were allowed to submit written questions to the court before a particular witness was excused from the witness stand. Trial courts were not required to ask all questions submitted by jurors. Rather, courts were instructed that the purpose behind the project was to clarify testimony and to help jurors understand the evidence. Thus, before asking a question, the court first reviewed the questions and heard all objections from counsel, on the record, outside the jury's hearing. Keeping in mind the rights of all parties to due process and the right to a fair trial, the trial court then was directed to apply the applicable rules of law and evidence, and if the question was proper in light of these considerations, the court asked the witness the question. Once the question was answered, the attorneys were given an opportunity to ask follow-up questions of the witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the jurors, judge, and attorneys completed survey forms about their experience with jurors asking questions in that particular case. These two cases in this consolidated opinion were randomly selected at the trial level to be part of the pilot project.
In this opinion, we first set forth the facts that led to the petitioners' cases before us. We then give an overview of juror questioning in this country and establish the standard of review for determining if a de
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|