## Facts

- Michael A. Fisher was indicted in an Ohio trial court for felonious assault with a firearm specification and proceeded to a jury trial.
- Before evidence began, the trial judge informed jurors they could submit witness questions in writing to the bailiff.
- The judge and counsel reviewed proposed juror questions at sidebar, and the judge ruled on admissibility under the rules of evidence.
- Jurors submitted 23 questions; the court disallowed 5 on evidentiary grounds and rephrased 2.
- The judge read approved questions to the witnesses, and both sides were permitted to conduct follow-up questioning after juror questions.
- Defense counsel objected generally to the practice of juror questioning, without targeting specific questions.
- The jury convicted Fisher on the charged offense and firearm specification; the intermediate appellate court affirmed and certified a conflict regarding juror questioning.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing jurors to submit written questions to witnesses in a criminal trial is per se prejudicial or structural error requiring automatic reversal.
2. Whether the decision to permit juror questioning, when subject to judicial screening and evidentiary controls, is committed to the trial court’s discretion.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that juror questioning of witnesses is not per se prejudicial and is not structural error.
- The court ruled that permitting juror questions is a procedural matter committed to the trial court’s discretion when managed with appropriate safeguards.

## Legal Principles

- Allowing jurors to question witnesses in a criminal trial, when controlled by the judge and constrained by ordinary evidentiary rules, is permissible and reviewed for abuse of discretion, not automatic reversal.
- Juror questioning does not inherently violate the right to an impartial jury if the court maintains control and prevents improper or suggestive questions from reaching the witness.
- Safeguards supporting fairness include requiring written questions, judicial and counsel screening outside the jury’s hearing, the judge posing approved questions, excluding or rephrasing improper questions, and allowing counsel follow-up examination.
- Structural error is limited to defects that necessarily compromise the trial’s basic framework; controlled juror questioning does not fall within that category and requires a showing of actual prejudice to warrant reversal.

## Conclusion

The court held that juror questioning, when screened and administered by the trial judge with evidentiary safeguards and opportunities for counsel follow-up, is a discretionary trial management practice that is neither structural error nor inherently prejudicial to a criminal defendant.


State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St. 3d 127, 789 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio 2003)