State v. Frost
| Decision Date | 12 March 1984 |
| Parties | , 14 O.B.R. 386 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FROST, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
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.
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 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 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:
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 instructions he gave the jury while answering its questions.
Such contention is not demonstrated by the record before this court. Appellant has filed only a partial transcript of proceedings. The partial transcript does not contain the total proceedings before the court relative to the questions raised by the jury. It does not indicate that the jury returned to its jury room and resumed its deliberations.
Crim.R. 30(A), in pertinent part, provides:
The above language of Crim.R. 30(A) is applicable to instructions given after the jury has begun its deliberations, as in the instant cause, as well as instructions given the jury before it first retires to consider its verdict.
However, the record does not indicate the court failed to give counsel an opportunity, out of the hearing of the jury, to object to his additional instructions before the jury returned to its deliberations.
All reasonable presumptions consistent with the record will be indulged in favor of the validity of the judgment under review and of the regularity and legality of the proceedings below. In re Sublett (1959), 169 Ohio St. 19, 157 N.E.2d 324 . Appellant has failed to overcome the presumption of regularity as to whether the trial court gave counsel an opportunity to object to his additional instructions, out of the hearing of the jury, before the jury retired to resume its deliberations.
Appellant next contends the court erred in questioning the trooper in the presence of the jury in his attempt to clarify evidence, as requested to do by the jury.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rosalie Grant, 90-LW-3786
... ... jury generally with the nature of the case." ... It is ... apparent 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 instructions Grant ... wished the trial court to give. Second, the jurors were made ... ...
-
State v. Grant, 91-13
... ... A trial court, however, is not required to give 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 ... Page 477 ... instructions sufficiently covered circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence, and burden of proof ... ...
- State v. Rac
-
Bigler v. Pers. Serv. Ins. Co.
...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 jury as thi......