The Akron Legal News

Login | March 28, 2024

Judges rule court did not have to address jury questions in defendant's presence

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News

Published: December 17, 2014

A man who argued his right to a fair jury trial was violated recently lost his appeal when a three-judge appellate panel ruled that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas handled his case properly.

Nathan Walters appealed his conviction for felonious assault to the 10th District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly gave jury instructions outside of his presence.

The facts of the case state that Walters was charged with a single count of felonious assault in May 2013.

The following January a jury trial was held on the matter and Walters was found guilty of that charge.

The common pleas court sentenced Walters to three years in prison and he promptly filed notice of appeal.

Before the 10th District judges, Walters argued that his right to a fair jury trial was violated when the trial court answered questions from the jury during its deliberations without his presence.

The state argued that no such error occurred because Walters’ attorney was present throughout the proceedings.

It further asserted that Walters failed to object to the instructions at the lower court level, and therefore forfeited all but plain error on appeal.

“Here, after the jury retired to the jury room and began their deliberations, they sent questions to the court, asking for clarification regarding the term ‘knowingly’ and the applicability of self-defense,” Judge Julia Dorrian wrote on behalf of the appellate court.

The reviewing judges noted that the trial court discussed how to answer the questions with counsel for both parties.

However, Walters was not present for that discussion.

In the end, the trial court told the jurors to rely upon the evidence they were shown and the previously given instructions.

“The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure,’” Dorrian stated.

However, the judges held that a defendant does not have a right to be present if that presence would not result in any potential benefit for the defense.

In Walters’ case, the judges found that his attorney conferred with the trial court regarding the questions.

In addition, they emphasized that the trial court did not give new jury instructions but instead told them to refer to the previously given instructions.

“Further, the questions at issue here were legal in nature. Appellant’s presence, as a layperson, did not have a reasonably substantial relationship to the opportunity to defend against the charge where his lawyer was present to advise on the legal questions,” Dorrian wrote, overruling the assignment of error.

Judge Amy O’Grady concurred with Dorrian.

In a separate opinion, Judge William Klatt concurred but for a different reason.

He stated that he would overrule Walters’ argument because he forfeited all but plain error when he failed to raise his issue in the trial court.

He concluded that there was no plain error and Walters failed to show any prejudice.

The case is cited State v. Walters, 2014-Ohio-5297.

Copyright © 2014 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]