State v. Frost
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | COOK |
| Citation | 471 N.E.2d 171,14 Ohio App.3d 320 |
| Parties | , 14 O.B.R. 386 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FROST, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 12 March 1984 |
Page 320
v.
FROST, Appellant.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Action by the trial court pursuant to Crim.R. 30(B), the giving of cautionary instructions to the jury, is discretionary and will not be disturbed on review unless the trial court abuses its discretion.
2. Any question by the jury during its deliberation, as to matters of evidence, if answered by the trial court, may only be answered by repeating, in some fashion, the evidence or testimony offered during the trial itself. Interrogation of a trial witness by the court as to said evidence in the presence of the jury constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Janet E. Virostek, Youngstown, for appellee.
Irene K. Makridis, for appellant.
COOK, Presiding Judge.
On March 21, 1983, appellant, Gary E. Frost, was tried before a jury on the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol (R.C. 4511.19). The jury began its deliberations on the 21st, but returned to court on March 22 to continue said deliberations.
On that date, the jury submitted ten
Page 321
questions in writing to the court. The first and third questions concerned evidence submitted during trial. The court attempted to clarify the evidence for the jury by questioning the Ohio State Patrol trooper, who was the arresting officer, in the presence[471 N.E.2d 173] of the jury. The record indicates counsel for appellant objected to the questions asked of the trooper by the trial judge. The objection was overruled. The tenth question submitted by the jury requested the court to define "reasonable doubt" again. The court re-read the statutory definition of reasonable doubt after voicing his personal opinion that the definition was written by "lay people" because there are so few lawyers in the legislature. Appellant did not object to the court re-reading said definition to the jury. At this point, a bench conference occurred.The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The court sentenced appellant.
Appellant has appealed the judgment of the trial court and has filed the following three assignments of error:
"1. The trial court erred in failing to comply with the requirement of Criminal Rule 30 that opportunity shall be given to make objections to jury instructions out of the hearing of the jury.
"2. The trial court erred [in] its questioning of the arresting officer in the presence of the jury upon the jury's return to the courtroom after its retirement with a written list of questions of law and fact.
"3. The trial judge erred in improperly and wrongfully expressing his personal opinions on the statutory definition of reasonable doubt and in improperly defining 'under the influence of alcohol.' "
The first and third assignments of error are without merit, but the second assignment of error is well-taken.
Appellant first contends the trial court erred in failing to comply with Crim.R. 30 since it did not give counsel an opportunity to object, out of the hearing of the jury, to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rosalie Grant, 90-LW-3786
...that the giving of cautionary instructions is discretionary with the trial court, and it has been so held. State v. Frost (1984), 14 Ohio App. 3d 320. We find no abuse of discretion here. See, State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 151, 157-158. First, we have no way of knowing what specific......
-
State v. Grant, 91-13
...preliminary instructions. State v. Comen (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 206, 553 N.E.2d 640, paragraph one of syllabus; State v. Frost (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 320, 14 OBR 386, 471 N.E.2d 171. Rather, trial courts may give preliminary instructions at their discretion. Furthermore, the court's final Pa......
-
State v. Rac, 27536
...an abuse of discretion. State v. Valentine , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 13192, 1992 WL 137101, *3 (June 19, 1992), citing State v. Frost , 14 Ohio App.3d 320, 322, 471 N.E.2d 171 (11th Dist.1984). The facts and circumstances of the case are relevant in determining whether a trial court abused ......
-
Bigler v. Pers. Serv. Ins. Co., CASE NO. 12 BE 10
...However, actions of the trial court to acquaint the jury with the nature of the case are discretionary. See, e.g., State v. Frost, 14 Ohio App.3d 320, 322, 471 N.E.2d 171 (11th Dist.1984) (finding an abuse of discretion where court answered jury questions by examining officer in front of ju......